RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before:

Bruce Stanton, Adjudicator

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:

15486/MVIA

Case Name:

Kolton Heatherwick vs. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Written Submissions by:

For the Appellant:

Kolton Heatherwick (self-represented)

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Agent

BACKGROUND

1The appellant is seeking a reconsideration of my decision released on January 3, 2024 (“decision”). In that decision, I confirmed the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle because I found that he did not meet either of the two grounds in s. 50.2(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, RSO 1990, c H.8 (the “Act”) upon which he sought the Tribunal’s order to release the vehicle from impoundment. I found that the appellant’s driver’s license was, at the time his vehicle was detained for impoundment, subject to a requirement that any vehicle he drives be equipped with an ignition interlock device. I also found that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship.

2The grounds for a reconsideration to be allowed are set out in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules 2023 (the “Rules”). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:

a. the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness;

b. the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; or

c. there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.

3In his request for reconsideration, the appellant identifies criterions a. and b. of Rule 18.2 as a basis for the reconsideration request.

RESULT

4The appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration

5Under Rule 18.2, the threshold for reconsideration is high. Reconsideration is a limited, error-correcting exercise, not a new hearing or an appeal of a hearing decision. The party requesting reconsideration must demonstrate how or why my decision falls into one or more of the criteria set out in Rule 18.2.

6I find the appellant has not established grounds for reconsideration for the following reasons.

7The appellant expresses disagreement with my decision, and he reiterates the oral evidence he presented in the hearing, that his circumstances are causing significant hardship, that his alternatives to the impounded vehicle are either too impractical or unaffordable, and that he was unaware of the condition on his driver’s licence.

8The respondent submits that the appellant has not put forward any submission that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness. The respondent’s submission is based on Rule 18.2 from the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, October 2, 2017 which have since been superseded by the Rules.

9The respondent also submitted that the appellant has not identified any error of law or facts made by the Tribunal that would have altered the decision.

10The exceptional hardship ground in s. 50.2(3)(d) is a high threshold for an appellant to meet. Financial hardship and inconvenience resulting from an impoundment are common. However, to meet the legal threshold of exceptional hardship, an appellant must, at a minimum, be without any alternative to the impounded vehicle and only then, and under limited circumstances could an adjudicator consider other factors in section 10 of O. Reg 631/98 (the “Regulation”) such as financial or economic loss or loss of employment. Furthermore, for an appellant to show they have no alternative to the impounded vehicle, under s. 10(4) of the Regulation, they would have to demonstrate that every reasonable option had been considered and inquired into, including using another vehicle and making arrangements to do without any motor vehicle.

11While I recognize the circumstances of an impoundment can be challenging, inconvenient, and bring with them an added financial burden, an appellant’s circumstances must meet the legal test in s. 10 of the Regulation for the Tribunal to order the vehicle released on the basis of exceptional hardship.

12Although the appellant cites Rule 18.2(a) as a basis for his reconsideration request, he makes no claim and provides no submissions regarding the Tribunal acting outside its jurisdiction, nor regarding any breach of procedural unfairness.

13I find the appellant has not satisfied the ground for reconsideration in Rule 18.2(a), in relation to a breach of procedural fairness or acting outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and in respect to the ground for reconsideration in Rule 18.2(b), he has not directed me to any error in law or fact I made in relation to the decision such that a different decision would likely have resulted. Therefore, I find he has not satisfied the reconsideration criteria in Rule 18.2.

CONCLUSION

14For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the appellant’s request for reconsideration.

Released: March 20, 2024

____________________

Bruce Stanton

Adjudicator

Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal