Scott Ribble v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 116461

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15432/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:

Scott Ribble Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Scott Ribble, Self-represented For the Respondent: Sadia Ashraf, Agent

Heard by teleconference: December 4, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Scott Ribble (the “appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of his 2023 Chevrolet Colorado (the “vehicle”) on November 18, 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 Thibaut Kaza (the “driver”), who was driving while his licence was under suspension due to a criminal conviction.

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

3I conclude that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, and I direct the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.

ANALYSIS

The impoundment will result in exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Act and the Regulation

4Section 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.

5If it is found there is no alternative to the vehicle, the Tribunal must consider, in accordance with section 10(1)(a) of the Regulation, whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle or, in accordance with section 10(3) of the Regulation, that there would be an immediate, significant and long-lasting financial or economic loss to any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle.

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 submits that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship as he has no reasonable alternative to the vehicle, and that the impoundment will result in a financial loss.

8The respondent submits that the appellant does have access to reasonable alternatives to the vehicle, and therefore does not meet the test for exceptional hardship.

9The appellant testified that he lives in a barrack on the grounds of Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Ontario (the “base”). The appellant is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.

10The appellant testified that his barracks are approximately six kilometers from his place of work (both are located on the base). To walk the six kilometers takes approximately 1.5 hours and is sometimes treacherous due to steep hills and icy conditions.

11The appellant was able to obtain a ride to and from his work from a colleague until November 29th, on which date the colleague went on leave and is no longer available. The appellant testified that taxi service is unreliable and is likely to be stopped at one of the two checkpoints before his workplace. There is no public transit or ride-sharing available on the base. There is also no shuttle service between the barracks and the work place. The appellant testified that he now has no friends or family who could assist with driving him to his workplace.

12The appellant testified that his normal hours of duty are Monday to Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Since the impoundment he arrived late for one shift. He was subsequently warned by his supervisor that one further late occurrence could result in his contract with the Canadian Armed Forces being terminated.

13As well as his regular hours, the appellant is also on recall duty “24/7”. This requires him to report for duty, at times, within one hour. The appellant testified that failure to do so would be cause for termination as well as cause for facing arrest for being absent without leave and failure to report for duty.

14The appellant further testified that, without a vehicle, he is unable to attend training opportunities that are outside of his area of operations. He submits that this could be detrimental to his future economic prospects.

15I found the appellant to be forthright and credible. I also accept his testimony that, at present and during the remainder of the impoundment period, the only consistent alternative to the impounded vehicle is walking to and from his work location. While this alternative may be consistent, I do not find it to be reasonable. The appellant’s position within the Canadian Armed Forces requires that he be available within an hour’s notice. I accept that failure to do so could result in the termination of his employment as well as possibly incur other serious implications.

CONCLUSION

16In summary, I find that there is no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle. I also find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant is facing immediate, significant and long-lasting financial and economic losses due to the impoundment of his vehicle. Therefore, I find that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Act and the Regulation.

I ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

17Pursuant to s. 50.2(5) of the Act, I order the Registrar to release the appellant’s motor vehicle.