Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15727/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

Between:

Bibi Sharima Hussain

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Bibi Sharima Hussain, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: April 2, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Bibi Sharima Hussain, the appellant, appealed from the impoundment of her 2018 Toyota, (the “vehicle”), on March 3, 2024 for 45 days. At the time it was impounded, the appellant’s vehicle had been stopped by the police and the appellant’s son Jibran Hussain (the “driver”), was driving it in contravention of a condition that prohibits him from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device.

2The appellant appeals on that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship because the impoundment costs are very difficult for her as she is in a financial crisis and she needs the vehicle to get to work.

ISSUE

3The issue in dispute is:

Issue 1: Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of Ontario Regulation 631/98 (“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), (b.1), (c) and (d) of the HTA. Specifically, the appellant appeals on ground (d), that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

7Paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1) provides for impoundment of a vehicle when it is being driven by a person in contravention of a condition on his or her driver’s licence under a conduct review under s. 57 that prohibits him or her from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device.

Issue 1: Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation

8I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship because the appellant has alternatives available to the impounded vehicle.

9Section 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.

10Only if the appellant is able to establish that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle then under s. 10(1), must I 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.

11I 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.

12I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

13The appellant testified that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship to her because, as a single person, the impoundment costs are very difficult for her as she is in a financial crisis and she needs the vehicle to get to work. The appellant testified about the amount of her income from her full-time employment, her living expenses and that there is nothing left to pay the impound fees.

14In cross-examination the appellant said that she has not missed any days of work since the impoundment because she has been able to obtain rides to work from her brother and sister. The appellant testified that she has also been able to obtain groceries, pharmaceutical and personal items because of the transportation provided by her brother and sister.

15Further, the appellant conceded in her testimony that she owns another vehicle, a 2009 Nissan, which she used once during the impoundment period to get to a medical appointment. However, she testified that she prefers not to drive the 2009 Nissan because it needs repair.

16The appellant has been provided with transportation by her brother and sister. Further, the appellant’s testimony and the records filed by the Registrar establish that the appellant owns a second vehicle, the 2009 Nissan as well as a 2000 Nissan which the appellant said she no long has. As a result, I find that alternative transportation is available to the appellant during the impoundment period, specifically from her family and the use of the 2009 Nissan.

17I may only consider whether the impoundment will result in financial loss to the appellant if there is no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle, so I have not considered financial loss.

18I find that the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle available during the impoundment period, specifically, transportation provided by her family and the 2009 Nissan she owns.

Conclusion

19I find the appellant has not established the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation. The appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

ORDER

20Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.