Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15813/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 pursuant to section 55.1 of the Act.

Between:

Ninad Belokar

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Rebecca Hines

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Ninad Belokar, Appellant Christian Boada, Paralegal

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Agent for the Registrar

Heard by Teleconference:

April 26, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Ninad Belokar (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of his 2024 Lexus on March 28, 2024, for 45 days under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”). At the time of the impoundment, an acquaintance was driving the vehicle while his driving privileges were under suspension resulting from a prescribed Criminal Code conviction.

2The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded in accordance with s. 55.1 may, under the provisions of s. 50.2 of the HTA, appeal the impoundment and request an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), allowing the appeal and that the Registrar release the vehicle.

3A vehicle owner may only appeal a vehicle impoundment on one or more of the five grounds provided in subsection 50.2(3). The appellant relies on s.50.2(3)(d). namely that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

4I have been asked to decide:

1. Will the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle result in exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA?

RESULT

5I find the appellant has not established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA. As a result, I confirm the impoundment.

ANALYSIS

I find the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship

6Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria by which exceptional hardship is defined for the purposes of s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA. Subsection 10(1) compels the Tribunal to first consider whether the owner has alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

7Subsection 10(4) of the Regulation places the burden on the owner to demonstrate there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, which includes considering and inquiring into every reasonable option such as using another vehicle and making arrangements to manage without any motor vehicle during the impound period.

8Only if the appellant demonstrates that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available to him, may I consider the other factors and criteria in the Regulation that define the exceptional hardship test, for example, financial loss, loss of employment, or the health and safety of persons who may rely on the impounded vehicle. Importantly, the Tribunal may not consider inconvenience when determining whether the appellant has proven exceptional hardship.

The appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle during the impound period.

9The appellant testified that he relies on the impounded vehicle because he is employed as an Uber driver, and it is his only source of income. This was confirmed by a vehicle for hire licence issued by the City of Toronto. He also testified that he does not have access to another vehicle during the impound period. This was supported by proof of loss insurance documents. He has inquired into renting a car during the impound period for the purpose of Uber and it was unaffordable. Further, if he does not get his vehicle back, he will be unable to earn an income to pay his rent or other day to day necessities, which may result in him being evicted. Finally, he does not have any savings or friends and family to rely on for support because he is a recent immigrant to Canada.

10During cross-examination, the appellant acknowledged that he has access to the TTC and is able to run errands such as grocery shopping, obtain prescription medication and attend appointments.

11Although the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle has caused inconvenience, and has had financial consequences, I find that he has an alternative to the impounded vehicle because he has access to the TTC for transportation during the impound period. As highlighted above, to meet the test for exceptional hardship the appellant first had to establish that there are no alternative means of transportation available to him during the impound period. It is not enough that the appellant has proven that there are no alternative means of transportation available to him to carry out his employment duties as an Uber driver. Since the appellant has public transportation available to him, I find s 10 (4) of the Regulation clear that I am unable consider the impact of the impoundment on his employment or financial loss.

12For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the appellant has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that he is without alternatives to the impounded vehicle during the impound period.

CONCLUSION

13I find the appellant has not proven the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under the provisions of s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation.

ORDER

14Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.