Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15018/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 under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while suspended.

Between:

Hillary Selvaggi

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR:

Colin Osterberg

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Hillary Selvaggi, self-represented

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: July 12, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Hillary Selvaggi (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on June 15, 2023. At the time of the impoundment, Michael Riggio was driving the vehicle with a suspended licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

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

ISSUES

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

RESULT

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

ANALYSIS

The appellant has not established exceptional hardship according to the Act

5I find that the appellant has not established that there are no alternatives to the impounded vehicle available and her appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act must be dismissed as a result.

6Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 under the Act (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that the Tribunal must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment.

7Section 10(1) requires the Tribunal to first consider whether an alternative to the impounded vehicle is available. Subsection 10(4) states that in order to show that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle:

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.

8If the owner fails to prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, then the appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act will be dismissed.

9If the owner proves that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle available, then s. 10(1) of the Regulation requires the Tribunal to consider whether 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 community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used. According to s. 10(3), if the appellant has proven that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle the Tribunal may, in limited circumstances, consider financial, economic, or employment losses. The Tribunal may not consider inconvenience when determining whether the appellant has proven exceptional hardship.

10The appellant says that she cannot afford to pay the impound costs, that she has two children and losing this car will cause major hardship.

11The Registrar has produced records which show that, in addition to the impounded vehicle, the appellant is the registered owner of a 2020 Acura motor vehicle and that she registered plates for that vehicle on June 19, 2023.

12The appellant agrees that she is the owner of the 2020 Acura. She purchased that vehicle June 19, 2020. However, the appellant’s father has been using the Acura to drive himself to and from work since it was purchased. She says that her father must drive 15 minutes to work and back and he is currently looking for a vehicle for himself. Until he finds one, the appellant has agreed to let him use the Acura.

13The appellant says that she lives about 15 minutes from where her father lives but it would be inconvenient for her to drive her father to work because he has to get there by 6:30 a.m. and she and her children would have to awaken earlier than they normally would in order to do that.

14The appellant works from home and her children have not yet missed any activities due to the impoundment. The appellant has access to public transportation and taxi services are in the area. Her father has driven her to get groceries and to run errands.

15The appellant’s main concern is that she will be unable to afford to pay the impoundment costs in order retrieve her vehicle from impound after the 45-day period is up. However, I am precluded by the Regulation from considering the financial or economic effects of the impoundment unless I am satisfied that there are no alternatives to the impounded vehicle. The appellant does have alternatives including the 2020 Acura, public transportation, taxis, and doing without the vehicle during the impoundment period.

16I find that the appellant has not proven that there are no alternatives to the impounded vehicle available and her appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act must fail as a result. I therefore need not make determinations with respect to the remaining components of the exceptional hardship test. Although the impoundment has resulted in inconvenience, I am not satisfied the appellant has shown exceptional hardship under the Act and her appeal must fail on this ground.

ORDER

17For the reasons set out above, the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle is confirmed.