Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15733/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 under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while suspended
Between:
John Gerada
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION
VICE-CHAIR: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant: John Gerada, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Sadia Ashraf, Representative
HEARD: March 21, 2024
OVERVIEW
1John Gerada, the appellant, appeals from the impoundment of his 2021 Honda CRF motorcycle, the vehicle, on March 2, 2024 for 45 days. At the time the appellant’s vehicle was impounded, the appellant was found by the police to be operating it without a valid driver’s licence.
2The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship to him because he cannot afford the impoundment fees given that his income is social assistance.
ISSUE
3The issue in dispute is:
i. Issue 1: Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation?
RESULT
4I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship.
ANALYSIS
5The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”) may, pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle.
6An owner may appeal only on the grounds set out in s. 50.2(3), (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the HTA. The appellant appeals on ground (d), that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
Issue 1: Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation?
7I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship because the appellant has alternatives available to the impounded vehicle.
8The appellant testified that he purchased the vehicle for re-sale purposes and in the meantime intended to let his daughter use the vehicle off-road until it sold.
9The appellant testified that he does not need the vehicle for his personal transportation because he can walk to stores and services from his residence, obtains rides from family members, and has access to public transportation and taxis.
10Section 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. In order to establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement, as set out in s. 10 (1) of the Regulation, is that there must be no alternative to the impounded vehicle. Subsection 10(4) states that in order to show that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle:
…the 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.
11If the appellant is able to establish that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle then under s. 10(1), I must consider whether the impoundment will result in:
(a) a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle; or
(b) a threat to the public health and safety or to the environment or property of a community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used.
12I can only consider financial, employment and education or training losses listed in s. 10(2) of the Regulation if the appellant first establishes that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.
13I may only consider whether the impoundment will result in financial loss to the appellant if there is no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle.
14Based on the appellant’s testimony which I accept, I find that the appellant does not need the vehicle for his personal transportation because he can walk to stores and services from his residence, obtains rides from family members, and has access to public transportation and taxis. As a result, the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle.
15The appellant has not proven this ground of appeal.
Conclusion
16The appellant has not established his ground of appeal, specifically that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation.
ORDER
17Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
Released: April 2, 2024