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:
Susan Kumar
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Susan Kumar
For the Respondent: Steve Grootenboer, Agent
Heard by teleconference: December 12, 2024
Overview
1Susan Kumar (the “Appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of her 2016 Mazda CX5 (the “vehicle”) on November 19, 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 K.K., whose licence was suspended due to a criminal conviction.
2The Appellant appealed the impoundment to the Tribunal on November 29, 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 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 K.K. 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.
8Section 10(2)(a) of the Regulation specifically prohibits me from ever considering inconvenience to any person, including the Appellant.
There are reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle
9The Appellant submits that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
10The Appellant testified that she lives with her husband and her 37-year-old son. Her husband is suffering from dementia, kidney disease and liver disease. She herself has had 2 femur fractures and, as a result, experiences some mobility issues. Both she and her husband are retired.
11The Appellant testified that her husband currently owns a 2007 Toyota Camry. While the Camry is operational, the Appellant is reluctant to use it as, in her view, it is unreliable as well as more difficult for her to enter and exit due to her femur injuries.
12According to the Appellant, her husband has not missed any medical appointments Although she has been advised that her husband should undergo physiotherapy, she has not yet scheduled any such appointments due to the impoundment.
13The Appellant testified that public transit services are available, although, due to her own mobility issues, she has some difficulty walking to the transit stops. She testified that she has not yet checked into utilizing TransHelp (a door-to-door transit service designed to assist individuals live with disabilities and are unable to use conventional public transit).
14Ride-sharing services and taxies are available. The Appellant testified that she has used Uber during the impoundment in order to obtain groceries and medications, although she finds that service quite expensive. Friends have also helped by assisting the Appellant with groceries and medications.
15The Registrar submits that the Appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle. The Appellant has utilized Uber and the assistance of friends for transport to obtain her groceries and medications. It further submits that, even though the Appellant finds it difficult to walk to public transit stops, she has not availed herself of TransHelp, which is available.
16The Registrar further submits that, although the Appellant prefers not to utilize her husband’s Camry, it is an available alternate means of transportation which she has, indeed, used in the past. Further, 911 emergency services are also accessible, should they be required.
CONCLUSION
17I agree with the Registrar. The evidence before me establishes that the following alternatives to the vehicle during the period of impoundment are available:
(a) The husband’s Camry;
(b) Uber;
(c) Public transit (including TransHelp); and
(d) Friends
18Although I appreciate that the impoundment of the vehicle, and the costs of associated with it, are difficult and inconvenient for the Appellant, it is apparent that reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle are available. I may not take into account any inconvenience to the Appellant. As such, pursuant to s. 10 of the Regulation, the ground of exceptional hardship must fail.
ORDER
19For the reasons set out above, pursuant to the Tribunal’s authority under s.50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
____________________________
Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
Released: December 17, 2024