Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15294/MVIA

In the matter of 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.

Between:

Teagan Feltz

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION and ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Bruce Stanton

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Teagan Feltz, appellant (self-represented)

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, agent for the Registrar

Heard by Teleconference:

December 7, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Teagan Feltz (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of her 2018 Dodge Ram pick-up truck on September 7, 2023, for 45 days under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

2The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded in accordance with s. 55.1 may, under the provisions of s. 50.2 of the Act, may appeal the impoundment and request an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) that the Registrar release the vehicle.

3For the Tribunal to order the vehicle released, the appellant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she satisfies at least one of the five grounds set out in s. 50.2(3) of the Act. The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship according to s. 50.2(3)(d).

4The appellant recovered the vehicle from impoundment on October 22, 2023.

ISSUES

5The issue in dispute is:

1. Did the impoundment result in exceptional hardship?

RESULT

6I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the impoundment did not result in exceptional hardship. Therefore, the impoundment is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

Circumstances leading to the impoundment

7Under s. 55.1 of the Act, where a police officer is satisfied that a person was driving a motor vehicle while his or her licence is under suspension for certain driving-related Criminal Code offences, the officer must detain and impound the vehicle.

8At the time the appellant’s vehicle was detained, it was being driven by an employee of the appellant. The respondent presented unrefuted evidence that the driver’s licence was under suspension for a prescribed Criminal Code offence pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Act at the time the vehicle was detained. Accordingly, the vehicle was lawfully impounded.

Issue 1: Exceptional Hardship

9I find that the impoundment did not result in exceptional hardship.

10Ontario Regulation 631/98 (the “Regulation”), under the Act, sets out the criteria the Tribunal must consider in determining whether an impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. Section 10(1) of the Regulation requires the Tribunal to first consider whether there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. Only if there is no alternative may I consider other consequences of the impoundment such as financial or economic loss or loss of employment or education, in determining whether the exceptional hardship test has been met. In order to establish that there is no alternative, s. 10(4) of the Regulation requires the owner of the impounded vehicle to demonstrate that every reasonable alternative option has been explored and inquired into.

11The appellant is the owner/operator of a property maintenance and property management company with four to five employees. The business has approximately 130 property maintenance customers (outdoor maintenance such as lawns, gardens, hedges, and snow removal) and has property management responsibilities for 20 buildings; a mix of multi-unit residential and commercial.

12The impounded vehicle was used to move employees to various job sites each day, seven days per week. During the 45 days the vehicle was impounded, the appellant put her own pick-up truck into service as the crew truck and she did the driving. The appellant submitted that the driving duties took her away from general management tasks such as quoting on new property maintenance work, searching for new business, attending to service issues, and attending training seminars.

13The appellant testified that the impoundment cost her company from $4,000.00 to $8,000.00 in lost sales and she incurred higher costs for a battery replacement and fees to recover the vehicle from impoundment, all of which she submits was a financial hardship to herself and her business.

14The appellant testified that her personal and household transportation needs were unaffected by the impoundment.

15The respondent submitted that the appellant has been able to maintain her employment and personal/household transportation needs using her second vehicle (personal pick-up) and because she has alternative means she does not meet the test for exceptional hardship.

The appellant had an alternative

16I agree with the respondent. The appellant testified that her personal vehicle was put into service to replace the impounded vehicle and she continued to use it for personal and household needs during the impoundment. As discussed above, under s. 10(1) of Regulation, only if the appellant has no alternative, may I consider other factors in relation to the exceptional hardship test such as financial or economic loss, or loss of education or employment.

17Although the impoundment created inconvenience, disruption and consequences to the business’s financial performance, I find the impoundment did not result in exceptional hardship because the appellant did not establish that she had no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

CONCLUSION

18I find the appellant did not meet her burden to prove that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship in accordance with s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act and s. 10 of the Regulation.

ORDER

19Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s motor vehicle.