Winston Sunstrum v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 91457

15225/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:

Winston Sunstrum

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION and ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Bruce Stanton

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Winston Sunstrum, appellant (self-represented)

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent for the Registrar

Heard by Teleconference: September 27, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Winston Sunstrum (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of his 2014 Dodge Grand Caravan on August 24, 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 he satisfies at least one of the five grounds set out in s. 50.2(3) of the HTA. The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship (s. 50.2(3)(d)).

4The parties attended the hearing in this matter, but the appellant left the hearing soon after he joined. The appellant left the call abruptly, leaving no opportunity to receive or understand his reasons for leaving the proceeding.

DISMISSAL

The appeal is dismissed

5During my introduction and overview of the hearing format and administrative elements of the hearing, I explained the parties would receive a written decision of today’s hearing in approximately one week, or five business days. The appellant commented that the vehicle would be available for release by then. The date of release is October 8, 2023, 11 days from now.

6Not long after his comment on the timeline, the appellant remarked that he no longer wished to pursue the matter. He then abruptly disconnected from the call approximately 10 minutes after he joined. He disconnected from the call quickly, leaving with no chance to inquire about his reasons for leaving the hearing.

7Rule 3.7.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules (“Rules”) states, “If after a hearing has commenced with the parties in attendance, a party is unable to attend part of the hearing, the party must advise the Tribunal of the reasons why they are unable to attend.”

8The appellant did not explain his reasons for leaving the hearing, only that he no longer wished to pursue the matter.

9Under Rule 3.7.2, when a party is unable to attend a hearing already in progress, I may; a) proceed with the hearing in the absence of the party; and/or b) make any order I consider appropriate in the circumstances. I interpret Rule 3.7.2 as applying in cases where, after joining a proceeding, a party ceases to attend of their own volition, as was the case today.

10In this case, the appellant was provided with the opportunity to have the matter heard and chose to leave the hearing while it was in progress without explanation. While I have the discretion to adjourn the hearing, I exercise my discretion not to do so. Rather, I find that these are circumstances in which it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal under Rule 3.7.2(b).

ORDER

11The appeal is dismissed pursuant to Rule 3.7.2(b).

Bruce Stanton

Adjudicator