David Belleau v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 103808

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15320/MVIA

An appeal under Section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an Impoundment of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to Section 55.1 of that Act

Between:

David Belleau

Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: David Belleau, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Sadia Ashraf, Agent Ian Sookram, Agent

Heard by teleconference: November 2, 2023

OVERVIEW

1David Belleau (the “appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of his leased 2022 Jeep Grand Cherokee (the “vehicle”) on October 9, 2023, under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). At the time of the impoundment, the vehicle was being driven by his son, Michael Belleau ( Michael”), whose licence was suspended due to a criminal code conviction. The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment of the vehicle will result in exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

2The issue to be determined is:

Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Act and O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”)?

RESULT

3For the reasons set out below, I confirm the impoundment of the vehicle.

ANALYSIS

Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Act and the Regulation?

4I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship.

5Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that I must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment. To establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement set out in s. 10(1) of the Regulation is that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, with s. 10(4) of the Regulation requiring the owner to demonstrate the lack of an alternative to the impounded vehicle. If I find that there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle, then the appeal will fail and I need not consider any other requirements of the test for exceptional hardship.

6The agent for the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) presented evidence that the vehicle was stopped while being driven by a person whose licence was suspended due to a Criminal Code conviction. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was validly impounded.

7The appellant testified that he lives at his home in Essex, Ontario with Michael. The vehicle is the only one in the household. The appellant is retired, and Michael is employed at Central Park Arena in Windsor, Ontario, approximately 20 miles from their home.

8The appellant testified that, in July 2023, he fell and fractured his hip and spent 10 days in hospital recovering from that injury. Since the July hospitalization, he was again hospitalized for 2 days due to a urinary tract infection. It was during that hospitalization that the vehicle was impounded. Since the appellant’s release from hospital, he has missed one medical appointment with his urologist due to the impoundment of the vehicle; however, he was later able to speak with the urologist over the phone. He has not missed any other medical appointments.

9With respect to the issue of alternatives to the vehicle, the appellant testified that he lives in a rural area. There is one bus that arrives in Essex at 9:00 a.m. that travels to Windsor and returns at 5:30 p.m. Ride-sharing and taxis are available, but the cost is excessive. The appellant advised that his oldest son, Robert, and his daughter-in-law have been able to pick up his groceries and medication. The appellant testified that renting a vehicle during the impoundment period did not occur to him.

10The appellant advised that, for the past three years he had been driving Michael to and from work. Since the impoundment Michael has obtained rides to and from work and, although costly, when he can and when necessary, he has taken taxis. He works the afternoon shift, and after one shift, walked the 20 miles home. Although the lack of a vehicle has created hardship for Michael, there is no evidence that his employment is jeopardized by the impoundment.

11The respondent submitted that the appellant has access to ride-sharing and taxis as well as rental vehicles and therefore the appellant has access to reasonable alternatives to the vehicle. I concur with the respondent. As well as the above alternatives, the appellant has had the assistance of his family. Michael also has had assistance from others as well as the use of taxis to get to and from his employment.

12Given that the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle the evidence does not support a finding of exceptional hardship. I therefore confirm the impoundment of the vehicle.

I ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

13On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, and pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.