Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15860/MVIA
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 that Act
Between:
Larry Morin
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATORS: Hande Bilhan, Member Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Larry Morin, Self-represented For the Respondent: Sadia Ashraf, Agent
Heard by teleconference: May 16, 2024
OVERVIEW
1Larry Morin (the “appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of his 2019 Dodge Ram (the “Ram”) on April 17, 2024, under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The Registrar alleges that, at the time of the impoundment, the vehicle was being driven by the appellant, whose licence was subject to a condition that prohibits him from driving a vehicle that does not have an interlock ignition device, and his vehicle was not equipped with such a device.
2The appellant appealed the impoundment to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“Tribunal”) on April 25, 2024.
3Subsection 50.2(3) of the Act sets out the available grounds on which the Tribunal may release the vehicle. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant is that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
ISSUES
4The issue to be determined are:
i. Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
RESULT
5On the evidence before us at the hearing, we find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
ANALYSIS
Issue - The impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Act and the Regulation
6Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that we must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment. To establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement set out in s. 10(1) of the Regulation is that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, with s. 10(4) of the Regulation requiring the owner to 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 vehicle during the impound period. If we find that there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle, then the appeal will fail and we need not consider any other requirements of the test for exceptional hardship.
7If it is found there is no alternative to the vehicle, the Tribunal must consider, in accordance with section 10 of the Regulation, whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle or 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. The Tribunal is prohibited from considering whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to any person. It may consider financial or economic loss, but only if the loss will be immediate, significant and long-lasting and the impact will be on a person ordinarily transported by the vehicle other than the suspended driver.
8The respondent presented documentary evidence which established that the appellant is the registered owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle was stopped while being driven the appellant, whose licence required the installation of an interlock ignition device in any motor vehicle that he drives. The impounded vehicle was not so equipped. We are therefore satisfied that the vehicle was validly impounded.
9The appellant submits that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
10The respondent submits that the appellant does have access to reasonable alternatives to the vehicle, and therefore does not meet the threshold test for exceptional hardship.
11The appellant testified that he lives in a rural area thirty kilometers north of Bancroft Ontario. He has few financial resources and lives by himself and his dog in a cabin. He testified that he has a brother who lives in Bancroft and has some friends who live in proximity to him.
12The appellant testified that there is no public transit in the area and there is no taxi service close to the area in which he lives. Consequently, a taxi ride to and from Bancroft (which is the closest town) would cost $100.00 round trip. The appellant testified that he lives on a pension of $1,020.00 per month. However, the appellant testified that his brother and friends are available to drive him for appointments and necessities, if necessary, although he is “ashamed and embarrassed” to ask for their help. He testified that he could “get someone to drive him if he needs”.
13The appellant further testified that he is in good health, has no medical conditions and takes no prescription medications. He testified that he has access to 911 and emergency services.
14The Registrar submits that the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle. His brother and friends have, and can, drive him to appointments and deliver groceries and necessities when required. He also has access to 911 emergency services.
15We agree with the respondent. While it is inconvenient, and, more than likely, uncomfortable, for the appellant to request assistance for transportation, that assistance is available to him. According to his testimony, he is in good health and has access to 911 should that be required.
CONCLUSION
16The Regulation sets out that if the appellant fails to establish that there are no reasonable alternatives, then the ground of exceptional hardship is not available as a ground of appeal. Further to the evidence provided, we find that the appellant has failed to discharge the threshold burden of establishing that there are no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle.
17The appellant has failed to satisfy the Tribunal on a balance of probabilities that he meets the test for exceptional hardship, as set out in the Regulation on the alternatives available to him.
WE ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
18For the reasons set out above, pursuant to the Tribunal’s authority under s.50.2(5) of the Act, we confirm the impoundment order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
____________________________
Hande Bilhan, Member
____________________________
Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
Released: May 22, 2024