Licence Appeal Tribunal
Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16310/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:
Tasha Kreamer Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION
VICE-CHAIR: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Tasha Kreamer, Self-Represented For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Representative
HEARD: October 18, 2024
OVERVIEW
1Tasha Kreamer, the appellant, appeals from the impoundment of her 2019 Buick, the vehicle, on September 24, 2024 for 45 days. At the time the appellant’s vehicle was impounded, the appellant’s son was found by the police to be operating it without a valid driver’s licence.
2The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship to her because she need the vehicle to attend daily and other medical appointments and because she cannot afford the impoundment fees given that her income is social assistance.
ISSUE
3The issue in dispute is:
i. Issue 1: Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation?
RESULT
4I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship.
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 under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation?
7I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship because the appellant has alternatives available to the impounded vehicle during the impoundment period.
8The appellant testified that she is able to obtain groceries and other personal items because she drives the second vehicle that she owns, a 2016 GMC truck and sometimes her friend is able to provide transportation for her when her friend is not working.
9The appellant testified that she needs to attend daily medical appointments with Paramed because of what she described as a serious infection in her foot. The appellant filed a letter dated September 26, 2024 confirming that she needs to attend Paramed Clinic for health services daily.
10The appellant also testified that she has to attend other, less frequent, medical appointments in other municipalities which requires her to drive her 2016 truck some 30 minutes to one specialist up to and one and one-half hours for other specialists.
11The appellant testified that after the vehicle was impounded she missed a few medical appointments but was able to get the brakes fixed on her 2016 truck and has been able to drive herself to her medical appointments since then, albeit with what she described as difficulty and some pain. No medical evidence was submitted documenting any inability of the appellant to drive her 2016 truck, and the appellant testified that she has been able to drive since the impoundment.
12The appellant also testified that she typically only drives the 2016 truck during the winter and because it takes more gas, and that driving it during the impoundment period is creating financial hardship for her. The appellant testified that the impoundment fees also will be a financial hardship.
13Section 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