Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15015/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:

Alyssa Bedore Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Alyssa Bedore, Self-represented For the Respondent: Andrew Sookhoo, Representative

HEARD: July 11, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Alyssa Bedore, the appellant, appeals from the impoundment of her 2009 Jeep, the vehicle, on June 17, 2023 for 45 days. At the time of impoundment, the vehicle was being driven by the appellant’s friend who did not have a valid driver’s licence.

2The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship to her because she needs her vehicle to get to her employment and to take her infant daughter to her medical appointment and her son to soccer.

ISSUE

3The issue in dispute is:

i. Issue 1: Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

result

4I find that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, and I direct the respondent to release the impounded vehicle.

ANALYSIS

5The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”) may, pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle.

6An owner may appeal only on the grounds set out in s. 50.2(3), (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the HTA. The appellant appeals on ground (d), that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

Issue 1: Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship?

7I find that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship because the appellant has no alternative available to the impounded vehicle and there is a likely threat to the health or safety of a person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle, and the appellant will suffer loss of employment and consequent financial losses, all within the meaning of s. 10 of the Regulation.

8Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that I must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment. In order to establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement, as set out in s. 10(1) of the Regulation, is that there must be no alternative to the impounded vehicle. 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.

9If the appellant is able to establish that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle then under s. 10(1), I must consider whether the impoundment will result in:

(a) a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle; or

(b) a threat to the public health and safety or to the environment or property of a community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used.

10I can only consider financial, employment and education or training losses listed in s. 10(2) of the Regulation if the appellant first establishes that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

11Pursuant to s. 10(3) of the Regulation, the Tribunal may consider financial or economic loss to any person, loss of employment or employment opportunity to any person or loss of education or training opportunity to any person if the owner demonstrates that:

a. no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available;

b. the loss will be immediate, significant and lasting;

c. the impact of the loss will be on a person ordinarily transported by the vehicle; and

d. the impact of the loss will be on a person other than the person whose driving while suspended resulted in the impoundment.

The Appellant Has No Alternative

12I find that the appellant needs to use the vehicle to get to her self-employment, to obtain groceries for her children, to take her one year old child to her medical appointment and her son to soccer, and there is no reasonable alternative available to her.

13The appellant testified that she is a self-employed beautician operating a beauty business in another municipality by herself and without employees. The appellant provided documentary proof of the name, location and hours of her beauty business which is typically open full business days Monday through Fridays of each week.

14The appellant testified that since the impoundment she has not been able to work at her beauty salon which is approximately 29 kilometers from her home. She had to cancel her clients’ appointments because she has no other means of transportation to get to her business. Because the appellant provides a beauty service and has animals in her home, she is not able to work on her clients at her home during the impoundment period due to health requirements.

15The appellant testified that she lives in near Buckthorn, in a rural area. Taxis will not come to her home without a credit card pre-payment and will not accept cash. The appellant does not have a credit card, only a debit card which she said is not acceptable to taxis in her area. The appellant said she inquired of another ride service but they would not come out to her home as it is in a rural area. The appellant looked on-line for a rental vehicle but, in addition to not being able to afford one, the appellant does not have a credit card which is required. No one else in the plaza where her business is located lives in Buckthorn and who can give her a ride to work. She does not know anyone in Buckthorn having moved there a few years ago. There is no public transportation where the appellant lives.

16The appellant testified that her brother, who was visiting her at the time, took her grocery shopping when the vehicle was first impounded but that he lives out of Ontario and is no longer visiting her. She has now used up the groceries she bought when her brother took her shopping. The appellant said she has been able to walk to a berry farm which is near to her home and obtain meat products and produce but they do not have a full grocery line and do not carry milk, for example. The appellant testified that there is no grocery delivery service where she lives and on-line services such as Instacart are not available. The nearest grocery store is in Buckthorn which is some 6 kilometers away. The appellant testified that she has no family or friends who can provide transportation to her during the impoundment period.

17The appellant also testified that she is unable to obtain transportation to take her one year old child to a medical appointment for vaccination during the impoundment period and to take her son to his soccer practices located in another municipality.

18Based on the appellant’s evidence, I accept that the appellant does not have an alternative available to her during the impoundment period. She has been unable to attend her self-employment since the date of the impoundment and is not allowed to provide her service to her clients in her home. The appellant is unable, because she lives in a rural area and does not have a credit card, to arrange alternate transportation through taxis, ride services or vehicle rental, and has no co-workers, employees, friends or family to assist by providing transportation. The appellant does not have public transportation available to her where she lives.

19Although the records filed by the respondent show that the appellant owns another vehicle, a 2006 Subaru Tribeca and a 2014 Chrysler, the appellant testified that neither of these vehicles are roadworthy due to mechanical problems. Correspondence with the appellant’s insurance confirms that the insurance was cancelled on the Subaru and the Chrysler many months prior to the impoundment. Photographs show the Chrysler parked in a green area or field. The appellant testified that the Subaru is not in her possession but is still at the place where it broke down. The appellant testified that the repairs required by both vehicles will cost more than each vehicle is worth, she has not had them repaired, and they are not fit for driving on the road.

20The appellant lives with and supports her two children. The children’s father lives in another municipality a few hours drive away and is not able to assist given that he has another family.

21The appellant has established that she has considered every reasonable option, including using another vehicle or making do during the impoundment period. I find that she has no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

Loss Will Be Immediate, Significant and Lasting

22I find that the loss of the appellant’s self-employment is immediate, significant and lasting.

23The loss of her self-employment income is immediate because the appellant had to stop working when the impoundment occurred and she has not been able to work since.

24The loss of her self-employment income is significant because she needs this income to support herself and her two children.

25The loss of her self-employment income is lasting because it will result in a complete loss of self-employment income for at least 45 days and has the potential to impact her self-employment because scheduled appointments had to be cancelled.

Impact of Loss is on Person Other Than Driver of the Vehicle

26The loss of her self-employment income on both the appellant and her children, none of whom were driving the vehicle at the time of impoundment.

Threat to Health and Safety of Child Ordinarily Transported by the Vehicle

27I find that there is a threat to the health and safety of the appellant’s one year old child who is unable to attend a medical appointment for immunization.

28As it is not possible for the appellant to take her one year old child to her medical appointment without the vehicle, given that there is no alternative, the impact of the impoundment on the appellant’s one year old child is that she will miss a scheduled medical appointment for immunization which more likely than not is a threat to the health and safety of such a young child.

Impoundment will Result in Financial Loss/Loss of Employment

29I find that the impoundment will result in the appellant being unable to work in her business, with the resultant loss of income on which her children depend. There are no employees that the appellant can count on to keep the business going during the impoundment period.

Conclusion

30As a result, I find the appellant has established the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation.

ORDER

31Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I direct the respondent to release the vehicle to the appellant.