Amrit Sohal v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 121073

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:

Amrit Sohal

Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Amrit Sohal

For the Respondent: Sadia Ashraf, Agent

Heard by teleconference: December 2, 2024

Overview

1Amrit Sohal (the “Appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of her 2011 BMW 328i(the “vehicle”) on November 14, 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 the Appellant, whose licence was suspended due to a criminal conviction.

2The Appellant appealed the impoundment to the Tribunal on November 14, 2024.

ISSUES

3The issue to be determined is:

1. Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

RESULT

4I conclude that the impoundment will not result in “exceptional hardship”, and I confirm the impoundment of the vehicle.

ANALYSIS

5The Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) presented evidence that the vehicle was stopped by police while it was being driven by the Appellant whose licence was suspended due to a prescribed Criminal Code conviction. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was validly impounded.

The impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Act and the Regulation

6Section 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.

7If 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 are reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle

8The Appellant submits that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship as she will be unable to afford the impound fees (which will surpass the value of the vehicle). Should she forfeit the vehicle to the impound facility, she also would not be in a position to purchase a different vehicle.

9The Appellant testified that she lives with her parents and two siblings (ages 13 and 20). She testified that her parents own one vehicle but use it for their employment. Her 20-year-old sister has a driver’s licence, does not own a vehicle, but has occasionally used the Appellant’s vehicle at times prior to the impoundment.

10The Appellant testified that she is employed as a Registered Practical Nurse at a clinic which is approximately a 20-minute drive from her home. She has used Uber to get to and from work at a cost of $25.00 each way and has not missed any work during the impoundment, although the ride-sharing costs are expensive. She testified that she does have access to public transit but has yet to use it to get to work or elsewhere.

11The Appellant’s parents obtain her groceries and incidentals. With respect to medical needs, the Appellant testified that, in that regard, she has no issues and has not, as of yet, missed any medical appointments.

12The Registrar submits that the Appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle. The Appellant has utilized Uber for transport to and from work. Public transit is available, although the Appellant has yet to avail herself of it. She has no medical issues and has not missed any medical appointments. Also, her parents are able to obtain her groceries and necessities.

CONCLUSION

13I agree with the Registrar. The Appellant has reasonable alternatives to the vehicle during the period of impoundment. As such, the Appellant has failed to satisfy the Tribunal on a balance of probabilities that she meets the test for exceptional hardship, as set out in the Regulation as she has reasonable alternatives available to her.

I ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

14For the reasons set out above, pursuant to the Tribunal’s authority under s.50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment order.