Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14610/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:

Jasmin Herrera

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Colin Osterberg, Vice Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Jasmin Herrera, self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

Heard by Teleconference:

March 8, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Jasmin Herrera (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of her 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 February 5, 2023. At the time of the impoundment, Kyle James Smith was driving the vehicle with a suspended licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

2The grounds for the appeal stated in the Notice of Appeal are that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

3The appellant failed to appear. The Case Conference was held March 1, 2023 and at that time the appellant agreed to three possible times for the hearing, including the date scheduled. On March 1, 2023, a Notice of Hearing was sent to the appellant by email. The appellant did not advise the Tribunal that she was not able to attend the hearing.

4The hearing commenced today at 1:30 p.m. At my request, the Case Management Officer at the Tribunal sent an email to the appellant and left a voicemail message on her telephone. By 2:00 pm, the Case Management Officer had not heard from the appellant, and she had not appeared at the hearing.

5In accordance with s. 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, I ordered that the hearing proceed in the appellant’s absence.

6The Registrar submitted evidence with establishes that, on February 5, 2023, a 2017 Hyundai motor vehicle owned by the appellant was impounded by police pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Act.

ISSUES

7The issue in dispute is:

i. whether the appellant has established a ground for appeal under s. 50.2 of the Act.

RESULT

8For the reasons set out below, the appeal is dismissed, and the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

9The onus is on the appellant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, one of the grounds for appeal listed in s. 50.2 of the Act. Since the appellant failed to attend the hearing and presented no evidence in support of any of the grounds for appeal under that section, her appeal must fail.

ORDER

10For the reasons set out above, the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle is confirmed.