Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14702/MVIA

In the matter of an appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from and impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while licence suspended.

Between:

Brittany J. Pacheco

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Bruce Stanton

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Brittany J. Pacheco, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Andrew Sookhoo, Representative

Heard by Teleconference

March 23, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Brittany Pacheco, the appellant, appeals from the impoundment of her leased 2017 Mercedes Benz, on March 3, 2023, for 45 days.

22373409 Ontario Corporation, the lessor, was named as the appellant in the original Notice of Appeal submitted to the Tribunal. The appellant’s name was corrected, on consent, at the hearing, to Brittany J. Pacheco, the person whose name appears on the plate portion of the vehicle’s Certificate of Registration.

3The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship because she needs the vehicle to get to work and to support family appointments and demands.

ISSUES

4The issue in dispute is:

1. Will the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle result in exceptional hardship?

RESULT

5I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship, and therefore I confirm the impoundment.

ANALYSIS

6The respondent presented uncontested evidence which demonstrates that the appellant’s vehicle was being driven by Nathaniel Snowden on March 3, 2023. Mr. Snowden’s licence was then under suspension for a prescribed criminal code conviction at the time the vehicle was impounded.

7The owner of a vehicle which as been impounded in accordance with s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”) may, under the provisions of s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) that the Registrar release the vehicle.

8A vehicle owner may only appeal a vehicle impoundment on any of the five grounds provided in s. 50.2(3) of the HTA. The appellant relies on s. 50.2(3)(d) i.e. that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

9The appellant has the onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

Issue 1: Will the impoundment of the vehicle result in exceptional hardship?

10I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship because the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle available to her.

11In considering whether a vehicle impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, I refer to section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”) that sets out the criteria by which exceptional hardship is defined for the purposes of s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA. Subsection 10(1) compels the Tribunal to first consider whether the owner has alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

12Subsection 10(4) of the Regulation places the burden on the owner to demonstrate there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, which includes considering and inquiring into every reasonable option such as using another vehicle and making arrangements to manage without any motor vehicle during the impound period. Only if the appellant demonstrates that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available to her, may I consider other factors and criteria in the Regulation, that define the exceptional hardship test.

Does the appellant have alternatives to the impounded vehicle?

13I find that the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

14The appellant testified that she is a single mother with an eleven-year-old son living at home attending elementary school. She needs her vehicle to get to work, up to a 30-minute drive from her home, help her mother get to hospital appointments, support her son’s attendance at school, get groceries and supplies for the home, and attend family medical appointments.

15The appellant testified that she has been using Uber, taxi, and TTC services for her transportation needs during the vehicle impoundment period, including attendance at work, helping her mother to hospital visits, and getting supplies for the home. She also walks to neighborhood convenience stores for some of those needs. The appellant’s son’s school is a five-minute TTC bus trip from home and the respondent noted that riders under the age of 12 can ride the TTC for free.

16Although she is using these alternatives, the appellant testified that the cost of these services and the expected fee for claiming her vehicle at the end of the impound period represent a financial hardship.

17Since the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as discussed above, I cannot consider other criteria and factors such as financial losses, in determining whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

18The appellant has not met her burden to demonstrate that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available to her, as required by s. 10(4) of the Regulation. On that basis alone, the appeal must be dismissed, and the impoundment confirmed.

CONCLUSION

19I find the appellant has not established the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under the provisions of s. 50(2)(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation.

ORDER

20Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.

LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL

__________________________

Bruce Stanton

Adjudicator