Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14675/MVIA

In the matter of an appeal from an impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Act.

Between:

Adam Sammut

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Rupinder Hans

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Adam Sammut, Self-Represented

For the Respondent:

Andrew Sookhoo, Representative

Heard by teleconference:

March 22, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Adam Sammut, the appellant, appeals from the impoundment of his 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 March 6, 2023, when it was found driven by him, a driver without a valid driver’s licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

2The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ISSUE

3The issue in dispute is:

i. Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

RESULT

4The impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship.

ANALYSIS

5The respondent presented evidence which establishes that:

i. the appellant is the registered owner of the impounded vehicle, a 2017 Audi Q5;

ii. on March 6, 2023, the police discovered the impounded vehicle being driven by the appellant; and

iii. the appellant’s licence was under suspension for a Criminal Code conviction at the time it was impounded.

The impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship

6I am not satisfied that the appellant has established, based upon a balance of probabilities, that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under the Act.

7Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 under the Act (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that the Tribunal must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment.

8Subsection 10(1) requires the Tribunal to first consider whether an alternative to the impounded vehicle is available. 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 owner fails to prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, then the appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act will fail.

10If the owner proves that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle available, then s. 10(1) of the Regulation requires the Tribunal to consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle, or to the environment or community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used. According to s. 10(3), if the appellant has proven that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle the Tribunal may, in limited circumstances, consider financial, economic, or employment losses. The Tribunal may not consider inconvenience when determining whether the appellant has proven exceptional hardship.

11I find the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle available.

12The appellant presented evidence and testified that the vehicle was used by his wife on a daily basis and it is the only household vehicle. He testified that his wife usually drives the vehicle to go to work, drive him to work, take their one year old child to daycare twice a week, and drive to medical appointments for herself and their child. At present, his wife is pregnant and expecting their second child. The appellant testified that the impoundment has negatively financially affected him and his wife and they have not been able to regularly attend work. His wife has also had to reschedule her doctor’s appointments.

13He testified that his wife has attempted to rent a vehicle but does not, at present, have a G driver’s licence, which is required to rent a vehicle.

14The appellant testified that his child receives a childcare subsidy to attend daycare twice a week, and if his child misses more than 36 days a year he could lose the subsidy. Thus far, his child has missed 7 days. His wife has been taking their child to daycare on a bus as the daycare is about 3 kilometres away. However, he testified that it is a bit of a walk to get to the bus stop.

15The appellant also testified that since the impoundment his wife and child have had to use the bus for transportation purposes. He testified that taking a bus is not as convenient and can take a significantly longer period of time. Given his wife’s pregnancy and mobility issues, she has also opted not to take the bus if the weather is bad. They have also used taxis and Ubers to attend their medical appointments and go to work. He testified that he has been going to the grocery store on public transportation and taking a taxi on the way back given his load of groceries. He testified that this is getting quite expensive.

16He testified that he also has a co-worker that drives him to work on certain days. Their family members have also offered to drive, and have driven, his wife to medical appointments.

17He testified that his wife’s employer has also paid for a one-way Uber to assist his wife in getting to work. However, she had to pay for her own Uber back home.

18I agree with the Registrar’s position that the evidence establishes that the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle. The alternatives that the appellant and his wife have utilized include, public transportation, taxis, Ubers and a family member. While this may not be ideal or convenient for the appellant and his wife, it is nonetheless, available.

19I find the appellant has not proven that there are no alternatives to the impounded vehicle available and his appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act must fail as a result. I therefore need not make determinations with respect to the remaining components of the exceptional hardship test.

Conclusion

20Although the impoundment has resulted in inconvenience and expense, the appellant has failed to prove exceptional hardship under the Act and his appeal must fail on this ground.

ORDER

21For the reasons set out above, the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle is confirmed.

Rupinder Hans

Adjudicator