Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16444/MVIA

In the matter of an appeal from an impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

Between:

Lucas Blancher

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Rupinder Hans

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Lucas Blancher, Self-Represented

For the Respondent:

Sadia Ashraf, Representative

HEARD: November 26, 2024

OVERVIEW

1The appellant, Lucas Blancher, appeals from the 45-day impoundment of his 2017 Ram motor vehicle (the “vehicle”) under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The vehicle was impounded on November 2, 2024. At the time of the impoundment, the appellant was driving the vehicle while his licence was suspended.

2The appellant appeals on the ground 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

4I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act. The impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

5The respondent presented uncontradicted evidence which establishes that:

i. the appellant is the registered owner of the vehicle;

ii. on November 2, 2024, the police discovered the impounded vehicle being driven by the appellant; and

iii. the appellant’s driver’s licence was under suspension for a prescribed Criminal Code conviction at the time the vehicle was detained in order to be impounded.

Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship

6The burden is on the appellant to prove on a balance of probabilities that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship as it is defined in the Act and regulations. I find that the appellant has not met his burden.

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.

8Subsection 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:

[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.

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) of the Regulation, 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.

11The appellant testified that he seeks the return of the vehicle so he can fix it, and sell it to pay off some of his debt. He testified that the impoundment fees would cause him financial difficulty and hardship. He understands that he cannot drive the vehicle given the suspension of his driving privileges. He testified that he has been using alternative means of transportation including public transportation, Uber, and relying upon the generosity of his co-worker, family and friends for transportation to work, to obtain groceries, and to pick up his son from daycare. It is clear the appellant has alternative means of transportation available.

12I accept that the appellant may face financial losses as a result of the impoundment, however, I am unable to consider these losses because they have been incurred by the appellant, who was the person driving while suspended.

13In addition, the appellant’s evidence is that these financial losses are primarily the result of the fact that his licence is suspended rather than the result of the impoundment. It is not within the mandate of the Tribunal to consider losses that are due to a licence suspension, only those which result from an impoundment.

14I find that the appellant has not established exceptional hardship within the meaning of the Act, and his appeal must fail on this ground.

ORDER

15On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, and pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the Act, the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle is confirmed.

Rupinder Hans

Adjudicator