Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16361/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:

Thani Siewdyal

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR:

Colin Osterberg

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Thani Siewdyal, self-represented

For the Respondent:

Sadia Ashraf, Representative

HEARD: November 4, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Thani Siewdyal (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on October 3, 2024. At the time of the impoundment, the appellant was driving the vehicle with a suspended licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

2The grounds for the appeal are that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

3The issue in dispute is:

i. whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

RESULT

4For the reasons set out below, the appeal is dismissed, and the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

The appellant has not established exceptional hardship according to the Act

5I find that the impact of the losses alleged by the appellant will be on the person whose driving while his driver’s licence was under suspension resulted in the impoundment of the motor vehicle and will be the result of a loss by the suspended driver. Therefore, the appellant’s appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act must fail.

6I find that the appellant has not proven that there are no alternatives to the impounded vehicle available and his appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act must fail as a result.

7Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 under the Act (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that the Tribunal must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment.

8Section 10(1) requires the Tribunal to first consider whether an alternative to the impounded vehicle is available. 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 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.

9If the owner fails to prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, then the appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act will fail.

10If the owner proves that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle available, then s. 10(1) of the Regulation requires the Tribunal to consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle, or to the environment or community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used. According to s. 10(3), if the appellant has proven that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle the Tribunal may, in limited circumstances, consider financial, economic, or employment losses. The Tribunal may not consider inconvenience when determining whether the appellant has proven exceptional hardship.

11According to s. 10(3)(d) of the Regulation, an owner may only succeed on the basis of exceptional hardship in respect of economic losses if the impact of the loss will be upon a person other than the person whose driving while his driver’s licence was under suspension resulted in the impoundment of the motor vehicle and will not be a result of a loss by the suspended driver.

12The appellant says that he is the only driver in his household and that he is the only breadwinner. His wife does not have her driver’s licence and has never driven.

13Because of the impoundment, the appellant is unable to continue working at his job as laying patio stones. This is because he needs to bring his tools to work and needs his vehicle to bring them there. His brother is able to assist the appellant and his family with most other driving necessities using his own vehicle but that vehicle is not large enough to carry the appellant’s tools for work. According to the appellant, if he has his vehicle available, his brother would be able to drive the appellant and his tools to job sites.

14In addition, the appellant’s wife testified that the impounded vehicle could be used by her nephew to drive her and her children to appointments. The appellant’s wife has to get to medical appointments every month for treatment of an eye condition and her 10-year-old daughter must be transported to Sick Kids Hospital regularly for medical treatment for a heart condition.

15The appellant says that he is within walking distance to public transportation and has been able to take care of his family’s everyday needs that way or with the help of his brother.

16I find that the appellant has not demonstrated that there are no alternatives to the impounded vehicle available and his appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act must fail as a result. The appellant and his family have been able to conduct all of their regular activities, including the attendance at their necessary medical appointments, with the assistance of the appellant’s brother and by using other means of transportation such as public transportation, ride-sharing services and taxis.

17Further, I find that the economic losses which have resulted from the impoundment will not be upon a person other than the person whose driving while his driver’s licence was under suspension resulted in the impoundment of the motor vehicle and will be a result of a loss by the suspended driver. The appellant is therefore precluded from grounding his appeal on economic losses which have resulted from the impounded pursuant to s. 10(3)(d) of the Regulation.

18I therefore need not make determinations with respect to the remaining components of the exceptional hardship test. Although the impoundment has resulted in inconvenience, the appellant has failed to prove exceptional hardship under the Act and his appeal must fail on this ground.

ORDER

19For the reasons set out above, the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle is confirmed.