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 that Act
Between:
Erin Stevenson
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Erin Stevenson
For the Respondent: Sadia Ashraf, Agent
Heard by teleconference: November 15, 2024
Overview
1Erin Stevenson (the “appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of her 2022 Chevrolet Camaro (the “vehicle”) on October 27, 2024, under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). At the time of the impoundment, the vehicle was being driven by R.E.V. (the “driver”) whose licence was suspended due to a criminal conviction.
2The appellant appealed the impoundment to the Tribunal on October 31, 2024.
ISSUES
3The issue to be determined is:
- Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
RESULT
4I conclude that the impoundment will result in “exceptional hardship”, and I direct the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.
ANALYSIS
5The Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) presented evidence that the vehicle was stopped by police while it was being driven by a person, R.E.V., whose licence was suspended due to a prescribed Criminal Code conviction. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was validly impounded.
Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Act and the Regulation?
6The impoundment of the vehicle will result in exceptional hardship.
7Section 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. To establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement set out in s. 10(1) of the Regulation is that there is no alternative available to the impounded vehicle, with s. 10(4) of the Regulation requiring the owner to demonstrate that they have considered and inquired into every reasonable option that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss, including using another vehicle and making arrangements to do without any vehicle. If I find that there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle, then the appeal will fail and I need not consider any other requirements of the test for exceptional hardship.
8If I find there is no alternative to the vehicle, I must consider, in accordance with section 10 of the Regulation, whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health and safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle or to the public health and safety or the environment or property of a community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used. I may also at that stage consider if there would be an immediate, significant and long-lasting financial or economic loss or loss of employment or education (or an opportunity for the same) to any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle other than the suspended driver.
There is no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle
9The appellant submits that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship as she has no reasonable alternative to the vehicle. The appellant testified that she is employed in a two-person operation delivering wines and spirits to various customers in the greater Toronto area. Her employment entails transporting cases of wine and/or spirits from wholesalers to retailers such as restaurants, bars and the LCBO. Her employment also involves transporting displays, banners, tables, chairs to and from trade shows.
10The appellant lives alone at her home in Toronto. She testified that she does have access to public transit as well as ride sharing services. However the appellant is unable to utilize public transit for work purposes as it is not conducive to transporting the cases of wine and spirits as well as the materials for the trade shows. She testified that, although she has used Uber once since the impoundment for her employment, she does not have the financial resources to continue to do so. She testified that while she does have family and friends from whom she may be able to borrow their vehicles, these would only be available on the weekends. However, the majority of her employment is from Monday to Friday.
11The appellant has also investigated the option of renting a vehicle to use during the impoundment period but finds this cost prohibitive.
12The appellant testified that she has not yet advised her employer of the full extent of the vehicle impoundment but is certain that there is a ‘good chance’ her employment would be in jeopardy if she is unable to fulfil her commitments to her employment during the remainder of the impound period. A major requirement of her employment is the ownership of a vehicle for work purposes. She further testified that this is the busiest time of year for the company and there is no other person who could substitute for her.
13The appellant testified that, should she lose her employment, she would be unable to continue to pay her mortgage, car payments and credit card payments.
14The respondent submits that, as the appellant has access to public transit, ride sharing services as well as help from friends and family on the weekends, there are reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle.
15I do not concur with the respondent in this regard. I agree with the appellant that access to the vehicle is central to the nature of her employment. I conclude that public transit is not a reasonable alternative to the vehicle with respect to transporting cases of wine and spirits as well as the equipment necessary for trade shows. Also, although ride sharing and car rentals are available, I do not find those to be reasonable alternatives if the appellant does not have the funds to utilize those services.
Conclusion
16I conclude that there is no reasonable alternative to the appellant’s vehicle. I also conclude on a balance of probabilities that the impoundment will cause an immediate, significant and long-lasting financial or economic loss or loss of employment for the appellant should the impoundment continue. Therefore, the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. As such, I grant the appeal.
I ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
17Pursuant to s. 50.2(5) of the Act, I order the Registrar to release the appellant’s motor vehicle.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
____________________________
Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
Released: November 19, 2024