Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15944/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:

Surjit Randhawa

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION and ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Bruce Stanton

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Surjit Randhawa, self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Agent for the Registrar

Heard by Teleconference:

June 10, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Surjit Randhawa (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of her 2015 Nissan NV200 van on May 27, 2024, for 45 days under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

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 Act, appeal the impoundment and request an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) that the Registrar release the vehicle.

3For the Tribunal to order the vehicle released, the appellant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she satisfies at least one of the five grounds set out in s. 50.2(3) of the Act. The appellant appeals on the ground under s. 50.2(3)(d), that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

4The issues in dispute are:

i. Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship?

RESULT

5I find that the appellant has not demonstrated that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. The impoundment is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

6Under s. 55.1 of the Act, a police officer is required to impound a motor vehicle if the officer is satisfied that it was being driven by a person whose licence was under suspension for certain driving-related Criminal Code convictions.

7The respondent submitted evidence that when the vehicle was apprehended by police it was being driven by Abdullah Imani (the “driver”), husband of the appellant, whose licence was under suspension for a prescribed Criminal Code conviction. Accordingly, the vehicle was impounded for 45 days.

Exceptional Hardship

8I find that the appellant has not proven that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

9Ontario Regulation 631/98 (the “Regulation”), under the Act, sets out the criteria the Tribunal must consider in determining whether an impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

i. Section 10(1) of the Regulation requires the Tribunal to first consider whether there is no alternative to the