William Joseph Christopher v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 26966

Date: 2023-03-29

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

Between:

William Joseph Christopher

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Rupinder Hans, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: William Joseph Christopher, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: March 2, 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW

1William Joseph Christopher (the “appellant”) appeals 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 February 1, 2023, when it was found driven by the appellant who was 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.

3For the reasons set out below, the appeal is dismissed and the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED

4The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

5The respondent presented evidence which establishes that:

(1) the appellant is the registered owner of the impounded vehicle, a 2015 Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck;

(2) on February 1, 2023, the police discovered the impounded vehicle being driven by the appellant; and

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

Exceptional Hardship

6I find the appellant has not established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship within the meaning of 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:

[T]he 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.

11Section 10(3) of the Regulation also provides that the Tribunal may not consider financial loss or loss of employment opportunity unless the vehicle owner demonstrates that the impact of the loss will be on a person other than the person whose driving while suspended resulted in the impoundment.

12The appellant testified that he needs the impounded vehicle for use in his business. He is self-employed and is a carpenter/framer. He moved from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to Ontario in order to build homes.

13The appellant is employed with NMP Construction in the position of framer/carpenter. He testified that he is currently employed on the Mattamy Homes Pickering project, and the vehicle contains his work tools. He testified that he uses the vehicle to get to the job site in Pickering and he currently resides in Woodbridge, where he is renting a room. He testified that he rented the room about a month and a half ago, prior to the impoundment. Prior to renting the room, he would occasionally stay in hotels while completing his work but usually he slept and stayed in his vehicle. He testified that the vehicle contains his clothes and other needed personal items.

14The parties agree that, after the impoundment, the suspension of the appellant’s driver’s licence was lifted as he successfully completed the steps required by the Registrar.

15I accept the appellant’s assertion that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle available. He testified that he has no other means of transportation and cannot attend the job site to complete the work he was hired to do. He testified that, since the impoundment, he has attended the job site one day to explain the circumstances to his employer, but otherwise, he has not attended the job site as he does not have the means. He testified that since his vehicle was impounded, he has been staying in his room and has not had access to any alternative vehicles. I am convinced by the appellant’s testimony that public transportation to the job site, which is about 60 kilometres away, is not feasible given the distance.

16As I have found there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, I turn to the next part of the test. The appellant testified the impoundment of his vehicle has been an inconvenience and had a negative financial impact on him. He has not been able to complete his work or have access to his tools.

17I accept that the appellant may have lost income as a result of the impoundment, however, I am unable to consider those losses because they have been incurred by the appellant, who was the person driving while suspended.

18I find that the appellant has not established exceptional hardship. Although 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

19For the reasons set out above, the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle is confirmed.