Melissa G. Van Rooyen v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 84412

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15179/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 of that Act

Between:

Melissa G. Van Rooyen

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Melissa G. Van Rooyen, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent

Heard by teleconference: September 11, 2023

Overview

1Melissa G. Van Rooyen (the “appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of her 2018 Kia Optima (the “vehicle”) on August 26, 2023, under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). At the time of the impoundment, the vehicle was being driven by Daniel Larocque (the “driver”), on whose licence was a condition that he not drive a vehicle that does not have an interlock ignition device.

Issues

2The issue to be determined is:

Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Act and O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”)?

RESULT

3For the reasons set out below, I confirm the impoundment of the vehicle.

Analysis

Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Act and the Regulation?

4I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship.

5The respondent presented documentary evidence which established that the appellant is the registered owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle was stopped while being driven by a person whose licence required the installation of an interlock ignition device in any motor vehicle that he drives. The impounded vehicle was not so equipped. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was validly impounded.

6The appellant testified that she lives with the driver as well as with a younger sister. The vehicle is the only one in the household. The appellant is employed at Sarnia Paving Stone Ltd. as one of two dispatchers who are responsible for the dispatching and paperwork for trucks crossing the Ontario/Michigan border. Her hours are from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, but is on call before and after hours, as well as weekends when necessary.

7The appellant produced an undated letter from her employer advising that the “use of a vehicle is imperative as Melissa, needs transportation to and from work to meet her contractual obligations.”

8From the date of the impoundment, the appellant has had the use of her mother’s vehicle, while her mother is recovering from surgery and is unable to drive. It is the appellant’s understanding that her mother will be cleared to drive her vehicle soon, and it may be necessary for the appellant to return the vehicle to her mother.

9Up to the date of the hearing, the appellant had not missed any time from work. She indicated that her employer has not advised her that her employment would be in jeopardy should she miss time from work during the period of the impoundment of the vehicle.

10Although there is public transit available, it only provides transportation part way to her place of employment. The appellant advised that she does not feel safe to either bicycle or walk to work. She testified that both taxis and Uber are available, but she does not have the funds to afford them.

11The appellant’s 25-year-old sister has health issues which necessitate that someone be present should she experience unpredictable flare ups of those difficulties. This would require her mother to have the use of her car should it be necessary for the mother to attend the sister during any crisis situation. Thus far, the sister has had one medical episode during the impoundment period. However, the driver was at home at the time and was available to accommodate the situation.

12Upon questioning from the respondent, the appellant advised that she does not have family or friends who could assist her with her transportation needs.

13According to the Regulation, in considering the ground of exceptional hardship, the Tribunal must first consider whether there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle. Up to the date of the hearing, the appellant has had the use of her mother’s vehicle. It is uncertain as to whether this will continue once her mother is permitted to resume driving.

14I found the appellant’s testimony to be honest and credible. I am satisfied that, should her mother’s vehicle become unavailable, the appellant would have no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle.

15Having found that there is no alternative to the vehicle, the Tribunal is now required, in accordance with section 10 of the Regulation, to consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle or that there would be an immediate, significant and long-lasting financial or economic loss to any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle.

16With respect to threat to health or safety, the appellant presented no evidence with respect to that of hers or the driver’s health. The appellant’s concern is that of her sister. However, the threat is not that there is a loss of transportation to the sister, but possibly the loss of an individual who could be of assistance to the sister during a medical episode. This is clearly not the issue which is addressed by s. 10 of the Regulation, which is the availability of the vehicle for transporting the person whose health would be otherwise at risk. For this reason, I find that the impoundment will not result in the risk to the health and safety of a person normally transported by the vehicle.

17Regarding financial or economic loss, the appellant testified that up to the date of the hearing, she has not missed any days from work, due to the availability of her mother’s vehicle. With respect to the remainder of the impoundment period, the appellant failed to lead any evidence with regards to any possible employment repercussions should she miss any time from her employment as a result of the impoundment. Subsequently, I find that the appellant has not met her onus of proving that there will be an immediate, significant and long-lasting financial or economic loss by any person normally transported by the vehicle.

Conclusion

18In summary, I conclude that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. However, the impoundment will neither present a risk to the health or safety of any person of a person normally transported by the vehicle, nor will there be an immediate, significant and long-lasting economic loss. I find, therefore, that the impoundment of the vehicle will not result in exceptional hardship.

I ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

19I confirm the impoundment of the vehicle.