Lacey Sayers-Thibault v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 34484

Date: 2023-04-25

Appeal Under Section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.8 from an Impoundment pursuant to Section 55.1 of the Act for driving while under suspension

Between:

Lacey Sayers-Thibault

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION and ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Katherine Livingstone, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Self-represented

For the Respondent:

A Sookhoo, agent for the Registrar

Heard by teleconference:

April 21, 2023

Overview

1On April 10, 2023, the appellant’s vehicle was detained and impounded for 45 days, pursuant to s.55.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”) after being driven by her son’s father while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code related reason. The impoundment period ends on May 25, 2023.

2The appellant appeals the impoundment on the ground the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

Issue

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

Result

4For the reasons outlined below, the appeal is dismissed and the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

Analysis

The appellant has not established exceptional hardship under the Act

5I find the appellant has not proven there are no alternatives available to the impounded vehicle and, as a result, her appeal under s. 50.2(3) of the Act must fail.

6Section 50.2 of the Act allows only a few limited grounds on which an owner may appeal, one of which is exceptional hardship. The onus is on the appellant to establish one or more of those grounds.

7Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 under the Act (the “Regulation”) sets out the requirements that must be met to show the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

8Pursuant to section 10(1) of the Regulation, the first part of the test requires me to consider whether “no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available”.

9Section 10(4) sets out what an appellant must show to meet this initial prong of the test:

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.

10If the owner fails to prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, then the appeal under s. 50.2(3) must fail.

11Only where the appellant has established there is no alternative available am I able to consider whether, pursuant to s 10 (1) of the Regulation, 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 property of a community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used.

12Additionally, the Regulations stipulate that unless the appellant demonstrates there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, the Tribunal is prohibited from considering financial loss in determining whether an impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. Further, I may not consider inconvenience when determining whether the appellant has proven exceptional hardship.

13The respondent presented documentary evidence which established that:

a) the appellant is the registered owner of the impounded vehicle;

b) on April 10, 2023 the vehicle was stopped while being driven by a person whose licence was suspended because of a Criminal Code conviction;

c) the vehicle was impounded pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Act; and

d) the vehicle is eligible for release on May 25, 2023.

14The appellant testified she is a single mother raising a five-year-old child. She is employed full time as a shift worker at a community hall. There is no public transportation in her community.

15However, the appellant testified she has a neighbour to call on to assist with groceries and she can walk to her employment or have a co-worker give her a ride. She has not missed any work since the impoundment. Although she said, “it is not ideal”, her son is able to walk to school and has not missed any attendance. The appellant has not missed any critical appointments.

16The appellant also said she “lives paycheque to paycheque” and did not have the money to get the car out of the impoundment once the impoundment ended.

17While testifying she wants to be “independent” and not rely on others, it was clear from her evidence that she does have alternative means to the impounded vehicle.

18As the appellant has failed to show there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, I need not consider the remaining components of the exceptional hardship test.

19Although, as a single parent, the impoundment has resulted in inconvenience and stress for the appellant, she has failed to prove exceptional hardship under the Act and her appeal must fail on this ground.

Order

20For the reasons set out above, the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle is confirmed.