Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14788/MVIA

In the matter of 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 of the Act.

Between:

Ashley Holst

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Bruce Stanton

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Ashley Holst, Appellant

For the Respondent:

Andrew Sookhoo, Agent for the Registrar

Heard by Teleconference:

April 20, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Ms. Ashley Holst (the "appellant") appeals the impoundment of her 2008 Chrysler Aspen on March 30, 2023 for 45 days under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "HTA").

2The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship because she needs her vehicle to get to work and to assist her mother and an elderly roommate to attend medical appointments and has no reliable alternative to the impounded vehicle.

ISSUES

3The issue in dispute is:

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

RESULT

4I find the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship and I therefore confirm the impoundment.

ANALYSIS

5The appellant's vehicle was detained for impoundment when the driver of the vehicle, her roommate, Mr. Darcy Creighton, was found to be driving while his licence was suspended.

6The respondent presented unrefuted evidence that Mr. Creighton's licence was under suspension for a prescribed reason under a conduct review program pursuant to s. 55.1(1)(3) of the HTA, and that, at the time of the impoundment, he was driving the appellant's vehicle in contravention of s. 41 and s. 43 of the HTA. Accordingly, the vehicle was lawfully impounded.

7The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded in accordance with s. 55.1 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 one or more of the five grounds provided in subsection 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.

9For her appeal to succeed, the appellant must 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 the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship.

11Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the "Regulation") 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.

13Only 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, for example, financial loss, loss of employment, or the health and safety of persons who may rely on the impounded vehicle.

Does the appellant have alternatives to the impounded vehicle?

14Though she lives in a small, rural town where distances between home and work and services are greater than average, and public transportation options (transit, taxi, ridesharing) are limited or non-existent, I find the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

15The appellant testified that she is the only licenced driver and has the only vehicle in her household. She lives with Mr. Creighton, the driver of the vehicle when it was detained for impoundment, and a second roommate of 69 years of age whom the appellant assists with transportation to medical appointments.

16She stated that she needs her vehicle to attend her job, approximately 30 minutes drive from home, four to five days per week. She has missed two days of work since the impoundment. Her employer has so far been accommodating her absences, but she worries the accommodation may not be sustained for the duration of the impoundment. The appellant testified that she is the only income earner in the household and cannot afford to miss much work.

17The appellant stated she needs her vehicle to transport an elderly roommate and her mother to medical appointments. Each of them has two to three appointments per month, sometimes requiring trips of more than one-hour drive away.

18In the nearly three weeks since her vehicle was impounded, the appellant has relied on a friend to assist her with transportation needs including getting to and from work and helping her mother and ailing roommate to and from medical appointments. She pays her friend, who lives 35 minutes drive away, for fuel and expenses, but his patience with providing these services is running low, his car needs repair, and he's sometimes not reliable. She has missed two days of work since the vehicle was impounded and missed one of her mother's medical appointments. The appellant gave no evidence that the arrangements with the friend will end before the end of the impound period.

19The appellant testified that she relies on the impounded vehicle to get essentials for the house. Since the impoundment, she has been walking to local stores to get household needs, up to 15 minutes' walk away.

20The appellant indicated that there is no public transit, taxi or rideshare services in her area but there may be services in the neighboring town of Listowel, 15 to 20 minutes drive away. She did not give evidence that she had made inquiries into alternative transportation services beyond her friend's services, for example, car rental or other publicly available, pay-as-you-go services. She said that her brother lives 30 minutes drive away, but his health prevents him from assisting with the driving.

21As discussed above, to meet the test for exceptional hardship, the appellant must first demonstrate that she has no alternatives to the impounded vehicle and that includes making inquiries into other reasonable options and arrangements that can meet transportation needs during the impound period. In this case, the appellant has made arrangements with a friend that, although they may be causing inconvenience, seem to be meeting most of her needs. She has not taken steps or made inquiries into other transportation options that could supplement (or, if it so happens, replace) the friend's services where needed.

22Since she has transportation arrangements in place and has not made inquiries or exhausted other reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, I find the appellant has not met her burden to demonstrate that she has no alternatives.

23Since the appellant has not satisfied the initial question that she lacks alternatives, the exceptional hardship ground of appeal is not available to her. With no other grounds of appeal being relied upon, I dismiss this appeal.

CONCLUSION

24I find the appellant has not proven 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

25Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant's vehicle.

LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL

__________________________

Bruce Stanton

Adjudicator