Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15009/MVIA
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(3) of the Act.
Between:
Tamara Huggins
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Tamara Huggins (self-represented)
For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: July 11, 2023
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1The appellant, Tamara Huggins, appeals the 45-day impoundment of her 2017 Lexus motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).
2The appellant’s vehicle was impounded on June 23, 2023, after police determined her friend, K.B., to be operating the vehicle while his driver’s licence was under a Criminal Code suspension.
3Subsection 55.1(1) of the Act allows for the impoundment of a vehicle for 45 days where a police officer is satisfied that the driver’s licence of the person who is driving a vehicle is under suspension for certain Criminal Code offences. In this case, K.B.’s driver’s licence expired in July 2004. His driver’s abstract describes the status of his licence to be suspended, cancelled, unlicensed and unrenewable. An extended driver’s record search for Criminal Code convictions reveals a poor driving record with convictions from 2000 to 2023. As a result, police impounded the vehicle pursuant to this subsection of the Act.
ISSUE
4The appellant appeals the impoundment on the grounds that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, relying on section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
5To succeed in her appeal, the appellant must establish this ground of appeal on a balance of probabilities.
CONCLUSION
6On the evidence before me at the hearing, I find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. The appellant appears to have reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle which she has been utilizing. I therefore confirm the impoundment.
ANALYSIS
7It is undisputed between the parties that the appellant is the owner of the impounded vehicle and that K.B. was driving it at the time it was impounded. In her Notice of Appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), the appellant admits to knowing that K.B. is not authorized to drive. She states she was out of the country at the time of the impoundment and would not have allowed him to drive had she been present. Nonetheless, during the hearing she also justified his driving the vehicle as he did so during a personal family emergency involving his son.
8Based on the uncontradicted evidence in this case, I am satisfied that the vehicle was lawfully detained and impounded under s. 55.1 of the Act.
9During the hearing, the appellant explained that she bears great responsibility in caring for her aging parents and aunt. She recently lost her cousin due to COVID-19 and also assists in caring for the children she left behind. Those children fall under the custody of the appellant’s aunt. The appellant also has children of her own. In all, she takes on the exceptional and admirable responsibility of helping 3 adult pensioners and 4 children. There is no doubt that this is a large responsibility, however, it appears that there has not been significant disruption in their care or routine. It was also noted that the adults do not live with the appellant and are able to manage independently despite some health problems.
10In times when she is required to assist, the appellant has been able to find reliable and suitable alternatives to the impounded vehicle. She has also utilized these alternatives for transporting herself and her children to personal appointments. Although inconvenient, these alternatives have shown to be effective and reasonable.
Has the appellant experienced exceptional hardship as a result of the impoundment
11I find that the appellant has failed to show that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship for the reasons which follow.
12As a first step, s. 10(1) of O. Reg. 631/98 (“Regulation”) elaborates on exceptional hardship. Section 10(4) sets out the need for an appellant to establish that there are no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle. This is a necessary first step in establishing exceptional hardship. Section 10(4) of the Regulation provides, as follows:
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
13Section 10 (1) of the Regulation, requires me to consider whether “no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available”. The appellant did not offer any evidence to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that she had no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle. In fact, the respondent provided evidence to show that another vehicle is registered in the appellant’s name. Upon questioning, the appellant explained that she sold the second vehicle, a 2007 Chevy, on May 17, 2023. Nonetheless, the appellant has had access to her mother’s vehicle on occasion and has also been assisted with rides from friends. In other instances, she has been able to walk and take public transit. In other instances, those who she cares for also have been able to independently transport themselves to their destinations.
14The appellant does have reasonable alternatives. They have allowed her to continue her daily routine with no major disruption. The loss of her vehicle is no doubt inconvenient, however, this loss is temporary and one that the appellant has shown a certain degree of resilience.
15During her testimony, the appellant also explained that she is currently on a leave of absence from work. When she is working, she stated that she is able to work from home.
16There are other examples which demonstrate that the appellant is coping with the loss of her vehicle and, aside from the inconvenience, is still able to obtain groceries, attend personal appointments, and assist family members.
17During her testimony, the appellant also stated that she has been taking advantage of personal delivery services such as Skip the Dishes to obtain her meals. Most notably, the appellant also stated that she is able to use her mother’s vehicle for appointments.
18In the end, the appellant confirmed that she has access to another vehicle on certain occasions. In circumstances where that alternative vehicle is not available, the appellant has managed to complete errands, attend appointments and other obligations. She also has support through family members, friends, and public transit to get to where she is going. There are no health and safety concerns at this time for any users of the impounded vehicle.
19The regulation sets out that if the appellant fails to establish that there are no reasonable alternatives, then the ground of exceptional hardship is not available as a ground of appeal. For the reasons set out in this decision, I find that the appellant has failed to discharge that burden.
20The respondent asserts that the vehicle was properly impounded in accordance with 55.1(1) of the Act. It is their position that the appellant has other options available to her that disqualify her from relying on the grounds of exceptional hardship. I accept this position. The appeal is dismissed on the basis that there are reasonable alternatives available to the appellant. As such, there is no need to address the other forms of hardship that can be addressed if there are no reasonable alternatives.
21I find that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she meets the test for exceptional hardship, as set out in the Regulation, based on the alternatives available to her.
ORDER
22For the reasons set out above, pursuant to the Tribunal’s authority under s.50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
Released: August 9, 2023