Mary Sangster v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 122936

Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15475/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 under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while suspended.

Between:

Mary Sangster Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Mary Sangster, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Sadia Ashraf, Representative

HEARD: December 14, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Mary Sangster, the appellant, appeals from the impoundment of her 2014 Ford Explorer, the vehicle, on November 21, 2023 for 45 days. At the time of impoundment, the vehicle was being driven by the appellant’s son who did not have a valid driver’s licence.

2The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship to her because she lives alone in a remote rural area and needs her vehicle to obtain her mail, groceries, medical care and medications, to obtain medical care for her dog, and in the event of an emergency.

ISSUE

3The issue in dispute is:

Issue 1: Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

RESULT

4I find that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, and I direct the respondent to release the impounded vehicle.

ANALYSIS

5The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”) may, pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle.

6An owner may appeal only on the grounds set out in s. 50.2(3), (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the HTA. The appellant appeals on ground (d), that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

Issue 1: Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship?

7I find that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship because the appellant has no alternative available to the impounded vehicle, and the appellant will suffer loss of employment and consequent financial losses, all within the meaning of s. 10 of the Regulation.

8Section 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. In order to establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement, as set out in s. 10 (1) of the Regulation, is that there must be no alternative to the impounded vehicle. Subsection 10(4) states that in order to show that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle:

…the 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.

9If the appellant is able to establish that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle then under s. 10(1), I must consider whether the impoundment will result in:

(a) a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle; or

(b) a threat to the public health and safety or to the environment or property of a community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used.

10I can only consider financial, employment and education or training losses listed in s. 10(2) of the Regulation if the appellant first establishes that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

11Pursuant to s. 10(3) of the Regulation, the Tribunal may consider financial or economic loss to any person, loss of employment or employment opportunity to any person or loss of education or training opportunity to any person if the owner demonstrates that:

a. no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available;

b. the loss will be immediate, significant and lasting;

c. the impact of the loss will be on a person ordinarily transported by the vehicle

d. the impact of the loss will be on a person other than the person whose driving while suspended resulted in the impoundment

The Appellant Has No Alternative

12I find that the appellant needs to use the vehicle to obtain her mail, groceries, medical care and medications, to obtain medical care for her dog and in the event of an emergency and there is no reasonable alternative available to her.

13The appellant is a 73 year old widow who has arthritis which results in her having trouble walking, particularly in the winter. The appellant testified that her home is in a remote, rural area. Her home is on a private road, which connects to a Township road, which connects to a highway. Ms. Sangster’s mail is delivered to a shared mailbox on the road which she said is about one kilometre from her home. In the winter the appellant cannot walk to get her mail from the mailbox because it is on a hill and because she has arthritis and she needs to drive to the mailbox to pick up her mail. Ms. Sangster lives alone, all of her family lives far away and cannot assist her except one son. This son was driving the vehicle when it was impounded and is not able to assist the appellant.

14The appellant testified that the nearest town where she can obtain groceries, medications, and attend medical appointments is Bancroft which is a 20 minute drive from her home. During the impoundment period so far the appellant was able to arrange one trip to Bancroft to obtain groceries through a seniors transit organization but found the transportation so stressful that she cut the trip short.

15The appellant admitted that she has not missed any of her medical appointments because she cancelled them due to lack of transportation.

16The appellant has been unable to obtain medical care for her dog as the veterinarian is about a one hour drive from her home, and this is a concern because her dog currently needs medical attention.

17The appellant also testified that she is concerned that in the event of a medical or other emergency she would be unable to use her vehicle to get help or leave her home. Telephone service and internet is not reliable where she lives so that if she needed to call an ambulance or fire department, she may not have phone available to her or if she were to fall, as she did last year, she may not be able to reach the phone to seek help and might be unconscious. There is no public transportation where she lives.

18The appellant testified that she has no family or friends who can provide transportation for her. Her daughter lives in another Province and her sons cannot help her. The appellant has no other family except relatives in another municipality some six hours drive away. The appellant has considered taking a taxi to the nearest town but found that the trip costs $55.00 each way and she cannot afford that as she lives on government pensions and has no savings. The appellant testified that she cannot afford to rent a vehicle. She has asked her bank for a loan but was told that because of her age and pension income she does not qualify for even a small loan.

19Based on the appellant’s evidence, I accept that the appellant does not have a reasonable alternative available to her during the impoundment period. The appellant is unable, because she lives in a remote area, to access any public transportation, has no friends or family who can assist during the impoundment period by providing transportation, cannot afford taxi service because of the cost of taxi services to her remote location, and cannot afford to rent a vehicle.

20Although the records filed by the respondent show that the appellant owns three other vehicles, the appellant testified that two of them, the 2006 Dodge and a 2007 Ford, were sold by her deceased husband and he must have forgotten to change the records with the Ministry. The appellant also testified that the 1974 MG was her husband’s car which is in storage. She cannot drive it because it is a convertible, cannot be driven in the winter, and she does not know how to drive a vehicle with a stick shift.

21The appellant has established that she has considered every reasonable option during the impoundment period.

Loss Will Be Immediate, Significant and Lasting/Threat to Health and Safety to Personal Ordinarily Transported by the Vehicle

22I find that the loss to the appellant is immediate, significant and lasting.

23The inability to obtain her mail, obtain groceries and medications, attend medical appointments, and obtain medical care for her dog are immediate losses for the appellant. These losses are significant for the appellant because she needs these things to live in her home.

24The loss of access to her mail, groceries, medications, medical care and medical care for her dog, is lasting because it will result in a complete loss of these things for the balance of the impoundment period, and has the potential to impact the appellant’s basic human needs and her health and well-being given the appellant’s age and medical condition.

25Based on these same facts, I also find that there is a threat to the health and safety of the appellant. As it is not possible for the appellant to attend medical appointments and obtain medications without the vehicle, given that there is no alternative, the appellant will miss her medical appointment which more likely than not is a threat to her health and safety given her age and medical condition.

Impact of Loss is on Person Other Than Driver of the Vehicle

26The appellant was not driving the vehicle at the time of impoundment.

Impoundment will Result in Financial Loss/Loss of Employment

27Any funds the appellant has to expend to meet her basic needs during the impoundment period will result in a financial loss to her.

Conclusion

28As a result, I find the appellant has established the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation.

ORDER

29Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I direct the respondent to release the vehicle to the appellant.