Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16398/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:

Gilles Gaudreau

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Rebecca Hines

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Angie Garvelle, Paralegal

For the Respondent:

Sadia Ashraf, Agent for the Registrar

Heard by Teleconference:

November 13, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Gilles Gaudreau (the "appellant") appeals the impoundment of his 2017 Chevy Silverado on October 27, 2024, for 45 days under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "HTA"). At the time of the impoundment, one of his employees was driving the vehicle while his driving privileges were under suspension resulting from a prescribed Criminal Code conviction.

2The appellant appeals on the grounds that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

3The issue in dispute is:

1. Will the impoundment of the appellant's vehicle result in exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA?

RESULT

4I find the appellant has not established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA. As a result, I confirm the impoundment.

ANALYSIS

5The appellant's vehicle was impounded pursuant to s. 55.1(1)1 of the HTA, because one of his employees was driving the vehicle while his licence was suspended.

6The appellant submits that the employee was not driving the vehicle but was sitting in the driver's seat, parked at the side of the road with the engine on when police intervened and impounded the vehicle. However, I have no evidence before me to support the appellant's version of events, and it is not relevant because it does not form the basis of his appeal.

7The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded in accordance with s. 55.1 may, under the provisions of s. 50.2 of the HTA, appeal the impoundment and request an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal"), allowing the appeal and that the Registrar release the vehicle.

8A vehicle owner may only appeal a vehicle impoundment on one or more of the five grounds provided in subsection 50.2(3). The appellant relies on s.50.2(3) (d) as noted above.

The impoundment of the vehicle will not result in exceptional hardship.

9Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the "Regulation") sets out the criteria by which exceptional hardship is defined for the purposes of s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA. Subsection 10(1) compels the Tribunal to first consider whether the owner has alternatives to the impounded vehicle during the impound period.

10Subsection 10(4) of the Regulation places the burden on the owner to demonstrate there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, which includes considering and inquiring into every reasonable option that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss to the person from the impoundment, such as using another vehicle and making arrangements to manage without any motor vehicle during the impound period.

11Only if the appellant demonstrates that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available to him, may I consider whether exceptional hardship will result from the impoundment, for example, evidence of financial loss, loss of employment, or the health and safety of persons who may rely on the impounded vehicle. Importantly, the Tribunal may not consider inconvenience when determining whether the appellant has proven exceptional hardship.

The appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle during the impound period.

12The appellant testified that he runs a construction business and that he requires the impounded vehicle in order to transport materials and employees to construction sites. He submits that the impoundment of the vehicle has resulted in great inconvenience because he has to use his own personal truck to transport employees and materials to job sites which has resulted in the projects taking longer to complete and longer work hours for him. Further, the impounded vehicle is costing him $3,000 per week because of the delays in finishing projects because they only have the use of one vehicle.

13During cross-examination, the appellant acknowledged that he owns three other pickup trucks but they cannot be used and are currently parked because they are larger trucks and have snow plows on them which will cost extra money to transport. Further, since the impoundment he has hired someone on occasion to transport materials to the job site but that this is an added expense. The appellant acknowledged that since his truck was impounded, he has not missed any time off work and has not lost any customers. Finally, the applicant also confirmed that he has been able to carry out all of his other errands such as doctor's appointments and getting groceries and other necessities using his personal vehicle. I also note that the appellant lives with his wife who has her own vehicle and they have an additional truck that would need to be safetied to make it road worthy.

14Although the impoundment of the appellant's vehicle has caused inconvenience, and has had financial consequences, I find that he has alternatives to the impounded vehicle because he owns four other vehicles (including his personal vehicle) which have met his transportation needs during the impound period. Further, the appellant also acknowledged that it would be possible to temporarily remove the snow-plows from the three parked trucks to be used for his construction business.

15Since there are alternative means of transportation available to the appellant during the impound period, I need not take into consideration the other criteria in the Regulation that define the exceptional hardship test such as, in some circumstances, financial loss or health and safety issues. Further, as highlighted above, inconvenience is not a factor the Tribunal considers in determining whether the exceptional hardship test has been met.

16I am not satisfied that the appellant has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that he is without alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

CONCLUSION

17I find the appellant has not proven the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under the provisions of s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation.

ORDER

18Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant's vehicle.