Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16374/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:
Shannon McFarling
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION
VICE-CHAIR:
Colin Osterberg
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Shannon McFarling, self-represented
For the Respondent:
Leila Pereira, Representative
HEARD: November 12, 2024
OVERVIEW
1Shannon McFarling (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of her 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 12, 2024. At the time of the impoundment, Thomas Jaeger was driving the vehicle while his licence was under suspension for a Criminal Code conviction. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.
2The appellant appeals on the grounds that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.
ISSUES
3The issues in dispute are:
- 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 appellant has not established that there are no alternatives to the impounded vehicle available and her appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act must be dismissed as a result.
6Section 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.
7Section 10(1) requires the Tribunal to 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:
[T]he 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.
8If the owner establishes that there is no alternative available, the Tribunal must then consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health and safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle, a threat to public health or safety, or a threat to the environment or property of a community in whose service the vehicle is ordinarily used.
9The Tribunal is generally precluded by s. 10(2) from considering financial or economic loss, loss of employment or an employment opportunity, or loss of education or training or an opportunity for employment or training. However, s. 10(3) provides that the Tribunal can consider these things if the owner demonstrates the following:
(a) no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available;
(b