Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15004/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:

Shaylyn Castanier

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION and ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Bruce Stanton

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Shaylyn Castanier, Appellant (Self-represented)

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Agent for the Registrar

Heard by Teleconference:

July 12, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Shaylyn Castanier (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of her 2009 Ford Escape on June 22, 2023, for 45 days under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”).

2The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded in accordance with s. 55.1 may, under the provisions of s. 50.2 of the HTA, appeal the impoundment and request an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) that the Registrar release the vehicle.

3For the Tribunal to order the vehicle released, the appellant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she satisfies at least one of the five grounds set out in s. 50.2. The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

4The issue in dispute is:

i. Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship?

RESULT

5I find that the appellant has not demonstrated that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. Therefore, the impoundment is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

Circumstances leading to the impoundment

6Under s. 55.1 of the HTA, where a police officer is satisfied that a person was driving a motor vehicle while his or her licence is under suspension for certain driving-related Criminal Code convictions, the officer must detain and impound the vehicle.

7At the time the appellant’s vehicle was detained, it was being driven by the appellant’s mother, whose licence was under suspension for failing to complete a remedial program.

8The respondent presented unrefuted evidence that the mother’s licence was under suspension for a prescribed Criminal Code offence pursuant to s. 55.1 of the HTA at the time it was detained. Accordingly, the vehicle was lawfully impounded.

Issue 1: Exceptional Hardship

9I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship.

10As discussed above, a vehicle owner may only appeal a vehicle impoundment on one or more of five grounds set out in s. 50.2(3) of the HTA. The appellant appeals on the ground set out in s. 50.2(3)(d), i.e. that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

11A regulation under the HTA, O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”), sets out the criteria the Tribunal must consider in determining whether an impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. Section 10(1) of the Regulation requires the Tribunal to first consider whether there are alternatives to the impounded vehicle. Only if there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle may I consider other consequences of the impoundment, such as financial or economic loss, in determining whether the exceptional hardship test has been met. Section 10(4) of the Regulation requires the owner of the impounded vehicle to demonstrate that there is no alternative.

The appellant has alternatives

12I find the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle and therefore fails to meet the threshold of exceptional hardship defined in the Regulation.

13The appellant is a single mother for four children: two girls ages 19 and 16; and two boys of 8 years, and 7 months. The youngest son’s father does not provide support and is not involved in the family whatsoever. The father of the 16-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son lives in the United States and is not eligible for entry into Canada. The eldest daughter is working part-time. The appellant usually drives her to and from work. The 16-year-old daughter was looking for work but without transportation has put her job search on hold.

14The appellant relies on the impounded vehicle to acquire household needs, transport her daughter(s) to work, visit the father of the two middle children in the US, attend family medical appointments, and transport her children to summer activities such as water parks. The appellant is currently on maternity leave from work.

15The appellant submits the family has two scheduled medical appointments remaining in the impound period and her 8-year-old son has already missed one dental appointment due to lack of transportation.

The appellant has inquired into and secured alternatives

16The appellant registered a second car, a 2012 Chevrolet Cruze, in her name, the same day as the impoundment, for her daughter to use to get to work. She testified the second car is currently not roadworthy and she cannot afford the expense to get it repaired to a level of roadworthiness. It remains a possible alternative if repairs can be completed.

17The appellant has a friend who has helped with some of the driving during the impoundment, but this is restricted to evenings and weekends as the friend works Monday to Friday, 9 to 5. The appellant does not have immediate family members who can help with driving or caregiving.

18The appellant testified that her eldest daughter reduced her hours to part-time due to the cost of and lack of transportation. The daughter has been taking the bus to get to and from work.

19Though the appellant testified of its inconvenience and difficulty, for example using strollers to transport the infant and being subject to unpredictable weather, the appellant is able to walk the 3.5 blocks to access retail services such as a bank and grocery store.

20The appellant testified that they have used Uber/Taxi only once since the impoundment because they cannot afford it on such a low income, and renting a car is unaffordable for them.

21Though the impoundment has caused considerable disruption and inconvenience for the appellant and her family, she has alternatives to the impounded vehicle. Retail services are close enough for walking, a friend is able to help with some driving off-hours, and public transit is available for medical appointments, attending summer activities, and access to work for members of the family who are working.

22I agree with the observations the respondent made in its closing statement; that the appellant’s family had no immediate health concerns, the four children are in good health, she has been able to walk to get essential goods for the household, and has used taxi/Uber and bus services as alternatives when needed.

23As discussed above, because the appellant has reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, I cannot consider factors such as financial or economic loss when determining if the impoundment reaches the threshold of exceptional hardship.

24Because the appellant has alternatives, I find the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship.

CONCLUSION

25I 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

26Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s motor vehicle.