Stephanie Yeo v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 58533

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14930/MVIA

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:

Stephanie Yeo

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:

June 8, 2023

Overview

1On May 20, 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 the appellant’s boyfriend while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code related reason. The impoundment period ends on July 7, 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. The appellant was verbally advised of my decision at the conclusion of the hearing and told written reasons would follow.

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 the first part 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 Regulation stipulates 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 uncontested documentary evidence which established that:

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

b) on May 20, 2023 the vehicle was stopped while being driven by a person whose licence was suspended due to a previous 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 July 7, 2023.

14The appellant testified the vehicle impounded was a truck that she used mainly on the weekend to get firewood and tow her ATV to her camp. Her boyfriend also used the truck to pick up snowblowers or lawn mowers to fix as a means of extra income. She was not aware her boyfriend’s licence was suspended and appeared genuinely surprised when the history of his licence was filed by the respondent.

15The appellant was very candid in her evidence and indicated she owned another vehicle that she used for her day-to-day transportation requirements. She has a daughter who is in high school and her daughter has not missed school due to the impoundment. No one in the family has missed any medical appointments due to the impoundment. The appellant has been able to get to work using the other vehicle and has also used the vehicle to buy groceries.

16While it was clear during the hearing the impoundment and the circumstances surrounding the impoundment have caused the appellant considerable personal angst, I find these circumstances do not rise to the point where I can conclude there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

17As 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.

18I find the appellant has failed to prove exceptional hardship under the Act and her appeal must fail on this ground.

Order

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