Shawn Krieger v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 98055

Shawn Krieger v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Date: 2022-10-18

Appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Act

Between:

Shawn Krieger

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Colin Osterberg, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Shawn Krieger, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: October 13, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW

1Shawn Krieger (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on September 8, 2022. At the time of the impoundment, the driver was driving with a suspended licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

2The appellant appeals on the grounds that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

3For the reasons set out below, the appeal is dismissed, and the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED

4The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

5The respondent presented evidence which establishes that:

(1) the appellant is the registered owner of the impounded vehicle, a 2016 Chrysler;

(2) on September 8, 2022, the police discovered the impounded vehicle being driven by the appellant’s son, Kody Krieger (“Kody”); and

(3) Kody’s licence was under suspension for a criminal conviction at the time it was impounded.

Exceptional Hardship

6Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 under the Act (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that the Tribunal must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment.

7Subsection 10(1) requires the Tribunal to first consider whether an alternative to the impounded vehicle is available. Subsection 10(4) states that in order to show that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle:

[T]he owner must demonstrate that every reasonable option has been considered and inquired into that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss to the person, including using another vehicle and making arrangements to do without any motor vehicle during the impound period.

8If the owner fails to prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, then the appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act will fail.

9If the owner proves that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle available, then s. 10(1) of the Regulation requires the Tribunal to consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle, or to the environment or community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used. According to s. 10(3), if the appellant has proven that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle the Tribunal may, in limited circumstances, consider financial, economic, or employment losses. The Tribunal may not consider inconvenience when determining whether the appellant has proven exceptional hardship.

10The appellant works as a mechanic in Ottawa and lives in Pembroke. He works full time, Monday to Friday, and the occasional Saturday. Pembroke is more than an hour drive away from Ottawa and so taking a taxi or public transportation is not an option for the appellant. He missed the first few days of work after the impoundment and then rented a vehicle. About 10 days before the hearing, the appellant purchased a vehicle to replace the one that was impounded. He intends to sell the new vehicle when the impounded vehicle is released.

11In addition to using the impounded vehicle for work, the appellant takes his daughter to her specialist appointments when necessary. His daughter had to reschedule one appointment due to the impoundment but has no further appointments scheduled before the vehicle is released.

12The appellant does not allege that any further hardship has, or will, result from the impoundment, other than the expense of having the vehicle released at the end of the impoundment period.

13I find that the appellant has not proven that there are no alternatives to the impounded vehicle available and his appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act must fail as a result. I therefore need not make determinations with respect to the remaining components of the exceptional hardship test. Although the impoundment has resulted in inconvenience and expense, the appellant has failed to prove exceptional hardship under the Act and his appeal must fail on this ground.

ORDER

14For the reasons set out above, the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle is confirmed.