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 pursuant to Section 55.1(3) of the Act.
Between:
Jamie Parker
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Jamie Parker (self-represented)
For the Respondent:
Leila Pereira, Agent
Heard by Teleconference:
March 30, 2023
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1The appellant, Jamie Parker, appeals the 45-day impoundment of his 2018 Ram 1500 motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act").
2The appellant uses this vehicle for his snow removal and plowing business. The vehicle was detained and impounded on March 6, 2023, after police discovered the appellant's friend, Peter Comrie, to be operating the vehicle, which was not equipped with an ignition interlock device. Mr. Comrie presently has a condition on his driver's licence that requires every vehicle he operates to be equipped with an ignition interlock.
3Subsection 55.1(2) of the Act allows for the impoundment of a vehicle for 45 days where a police officer is satisfied that there is a contravention of a condition imposed for a prescribed reason on the driver's licence that prohibits him from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device. The vehicle was impounded pursuant to this subsection of the Act.
ISSUE
4The appellant appeals the impoundment on the grounds that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, relying on section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
5To succeed in his appeal, the appellant must establish this ground of appeal on a balance of probabilities.
CONCLUSION
6The appellant has failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. I therefore confirm the impoundment.
ANALYSIS
7It is undisputed between the parties that Mr. Parker is the owner of the impounded vehicle, that Mr. Comrie was driving it at the time it was impounded, that Mr. Comrie's driver's licence had a condition that required any motor vehicle that he drives be equipped with an ignition interlock device. I am satisfied that the vehicle was lawfully detained and impounded under s. 55.1 of the Act.
Has the appellant experienced exceptional hardship as a result of the impoundment
8I find that the appellant has failed to show that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship for the reasons which follow.
9As a first step, s. 10(1) of O. Reg. 631/98 ("Regulation") elaborates on exceptional hardship. Section 10(4) sets out the need for an appellant to establish that there are no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle. This is a necessary first step in establishing exceptional hardship. Section 10(4) of the Regulation provides, as follows:
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
10Section 10 (1) of the Regulation, requires me to consider whether "no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available". The appellant did not offer any evidence to demonstrate he had no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle.
11If the appellant fails to establish that there are no reasonable alternatives, then the ground of exceptional hardship is not available as a ground of appeal. For the reasons that follows, I find that the appellant has failed to discharge that burden.
12The appellant operates a snow removal and plowing business which currently services approximately eight properties. He has a small fleet of vehicles consisting of four pickup trucks, including the impounded vehicle. Two are currently being repaired and the last one is available for use.
13Although the appellant is down several vehicles, he has still managed to respond to most client calls. He testified that he was unable to respond to some of the calls due the fact that his vehicle is impounded.
14The appellant does not have any employees as they are all subcontractors to him. He states that he loses $1,750 for each lost job. In two instances, he was able to borrow his brother and sister-in-law's truck to conduct business and respond to client calls.
15I find that there is an alternative which is available and has been utilized by the appellant. In circumstances where that alternative vehicle is not available, the appellant has still managed to complete errands, obtain his groceries and other essentials without exceptional hardship.
16Based on the evidence, and in accordance with s.10(4) of O. Reg. 631/98 I find that the appellant has an alternative to the impounded vehicle. Indeed, the appellant has demonstrated the ability to conduct business with the existing vehicle he has and, if need be, secure the use of a family member's vehicle as a substitute. As such, the appeal must be dismissed on this basis. and it is unnecessary to consider the evidence tendered by the appellant with respect to the financial hardship the appellant has experienced as a result of the impoundment.
ORDER
17For the reasons set out above, pursuant to the Tribunal's authority under s.50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
Released: May 5, 2023