Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16331/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:

Alexandra Clouthier

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION and ORDER

VICE-CHAIR: Robert Maich

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Alexandra Clouthier

For the Respondent: Sadia Ashraf, Agent for the Registrar

Heard by Teleconference: October 23, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Alexandra Clouthier (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of her 2024 KIA Sportage on September 30, 2024, for 45 days under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

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 Act, 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(3) of the Act. The appellant appeals on the grounds that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship (s. 50.2(3)(d)).

ISSUES

[4] The issues in dispute are: i. Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship?

RESULT

5I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship. The Registrar’s impoundment of the vehicle is upheld.

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 was 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 Craig Alexander Arbuthnot, friend of the appellant. The respondent presented unrefuted evidence that the driver’s licence was under suspension for a prescribed Criminal Code offence pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Act at the time it was detained. Accordingly, the vehicle was lawfully impounded.

Exceptional Hardship

8I find the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship.

9Ontario Regulation 631/98 (the “Regulation”), under the Act, sets out the criteria the Tribunal must consider in determining whether an impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

10Section 10(1) of the Regulation requires the Tribunal to first consider whether there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

11Only if there is no alternative may I consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle or a threat to the public health and safety or to the environment or property of a community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used.

12Further, I may only consider other consequences of the impoundment such as financial or economic loss, or loss of employment or education in determining whether the exceptional hardship test has been met, if the owner demonstrates not only that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, but also that the loss will be immediate, significant and lasting, will be upon a person ordinarily transported by the vehicle, and that the impact of the loss will be upon someone other than the suspended driver.

13In order to establish that there is no alternative, s. 10(4) of the Regulation requires the owner of the impounded vehicle to demonstrate that every reasonable option has been explored and inquired into, including using another vehicle or arranging to be without any vehicle.

14The appellant testified that she lives with her two year old daughter in Nepean Ontario. She is currently off work sick due to pneumonia and is not due back to work until November; she has been off sick since October 7, 2024. She normally works three days a week for 12-hour shifts; she must attend her work and cannot work remotely. Her daughter is normally in daycare but has stayed home with her mother since October 7, 2024.

15The appellant also testified that there is public transit, uber, taxi, and car rental available, but she is unable to afford these options. The appellant states she will not be able to go to work as no ride is available for her.

16The appellant further testified that groceries and medicine were delivered by her parents, but they are unable to continue assisting her due to their own limitations. She has no other friends or family that are able to assist her.

17The appellant stated in her closing argument that her vehicle was very important to her and important to maintain the necessities of life; she stated no other method of transportation is feasible for her circumstances as other options are unaffordable. The appellant also stated she is concerned the impound fees will be detrimental to her.

18The respondent submits the appellant does not meet the criteria for exceptional hardship and seeks confirmation of the impoundment. The respondent submitted the appellant has other methods of transportation available to her by public transit, uber, taxi and car rental. The respondent also submits that the appellant has not missed any work or medical appointments due to the impoundment. Further, the appellant has been able to obtain groceries and medicine since the impoundment, nor has the appellant missed any medical appointments.

19I find the appellant has not met her burden in demonstrating exceptional hardship.

20I find the appellant has not demonstrated that there are no other alternatives to transportation available, nor demonstrated a threat to the health and safety of the appellant or her family as a result of the impoundment.

CONCLUSION

21I find the appellant has not met her burden in proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the impoundment will result exceptional hardship pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act and s. 10 of the Regulation.

ORDER

22Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the Registrar’s impoundment of the vehicle.

Robert Maich

Vice Chair