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 for driving while suspended.
Between:
Crystal Halls
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISON
ADJUDICATOR: Laura Hodgson, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: C. Halls, Self-Represented
For the Respondent: L. Pereira, Agent
REASONS FOR DECISION
Overview
1The appellant requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated April 13, 2023, which confirmed the Registrar’s impoundment of the appellant’s motor vehicle.
2The appellant’s vehicle was impounded on March 24, 2023, for 45 days under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 8 (the “Act”). This section allows a police officer to impound a motor vehicle if the driver’s licence is subject to an ignition interlock condition and the vehicle is not so equipped. The appellant’s vehicle was driven by her partner, who was subject to an interlock condition, at the time of impoundment.
3At the hearing, the appellant relied on the ground that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that her partner’s licence was not subject to conditions (s. 50.2(3)(c)). She also appealed on the ground that that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship (s. 50.2(3)(d)).
4Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I concluded that the appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she exercised due diligence or that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship. As a result, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.
5The appellant requests reconsideration of this decision based on new evidence. For the reasons set out below, the request for reconsideration is denied.
Analysis
6The grounds for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision are limited and specific. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate the same points presented at the hearing nor an opportunity to make new submissions.
7The criteria for granting reconsideration are set out in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017). A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;
b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made;
c) The Tribunal heard false evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or
d) There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
8The appellant relies on the criteria set out in subsection (d) and has provided additional evidence in her request for reconsideration in the form of written submissions. The appellant indicates that she has now lost house cleaning/bridal hair clients who live in specific areas. She also wrote that, as a result of the financial stress from the impoundment, she has cancelled her wedding and is living apart from her partner. The appellant indicates that she lives on the outskirts of town, making taxi costs prohibitive and that she has significant debt.
9In her request for reconsideration, the appellant presents evidence that was considered at the hearing or that was available at that time (i.e., her debt load). I agree with the respondent Registrar of Motor Vehicles that this new evidence (i.e., that the appellant has now lost specific clients because of the vehicle impoundment or the cancellation of her wedding) would not have “likely affected the result.”
10As noted at paragraphs 10 to 12 of the original decision, in determining exceptional hardship, the Tribunal must first determine if the appellant has an alternative to the impounded vehicle. In order to show that no alternative vehicle is available, s. 10(4) of Regulation 631/98 requires the owner demonstrate that every reasonable option has been considered that could mitigate or eliminate a threat or loss. This includes using another vehicle and making arrangements to do without a vehicle. If the owner fails to prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available then this ground of appeal will fail.
11At the hearing, because the appellant testified that, though costly, she takes taxis and also obtains rides from friends and clients, I found that she did not establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle as required by the regulation. This was enough to dismiss this ground of appeal.
12The impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle has clearly caused her emotional and financial stress. The Tribunal cannot, however, consider the financial impact of the impoundment if there are reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle. Since the appellant did not meet her burden of demonstrating that there was no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, the financial evidence she seeks to present on reconsideration would not have affected the result.
13The criteria for reconsideration set out in Rule 18.2 (d) has not been met and the applicant’s reconsideration request is denied.
Order
14Pursuant to Rule 18.4(b), the Tribunal confirms the decision dated April 18, 2023.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_
Laura Hodgson, Member
Released: May 25, 2023