Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15775/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
Teresa Lavergne
Applicant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION
VICE-CHAIR: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Teresa Lavergne, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Representative
Heard by Teleconference: April 11, 2024
OVERVIEW
1Teresa Lavergne, the appellant, appeals from the impoundment of her 2022 Nissan, the vehicle, on March 23, 2024 for 45 days.
2The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship because she needs the vehicle to care for her 82-year-old mother and another senior, help her sister, and to babysit her grandchildren and drive them to sports. The appellant states in her Notice of Appeal that her only income is from a pension and she cannot afford the impound fees.
ISSUES
3The issue in dispute is:
Issue 1: Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
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?
7I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship because the appellant has alternatives available to the impounded vehicle.
8Section 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.
9If 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.
10I 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.
11Pursuant to s. 10(2)(a) of the Regulation, the Tribunal may never consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to any person.
12The appellant testified that since the vehicle was impounded she has taken the bus to obtain groceries for her mother and the other senior she cares for, and will be able to take the bus to attend her upcoming medical appointment. The appellant said that her son provided her with a rental car for about five days but this is not available any longer. The appellant testified that her daughter has brought her groceries during the impoundment period. However, the appellant testified that her grandchildren are missing her.
13The appellant also testified that if the appellant has to pay the impoundment fees to obtain release of the vehicle, this will be a financial hardship for her because she lives on a pension income.
14The appellant testified that she does not own any other vehicles in addition to the impounded vehicle.
15I may only consider whether the impoundment will result in financial loss to the appellant if there is no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle.
16I find that the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle available to her during the impoundment period including the bus, car rental albeit at a cost, and help from her daughter in obtaining groceries during the impoundment period. The appellant's temporary inability to be with and provide transportation to her grandchildren for sports events does not constitute exceptional hardship.
Conclusion
17As a result, I 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.
ORDER
18Pursuant 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 29, 2024