Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16039/MVIA

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:

Margaret Frost

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Avril A. Farlam

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Margaret Frost, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: July 15, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Margaret Frost, the appellant, appeals from the impoundment of her 2008 Honda, the vehicle, on June 20, 2024 for 45 days. At the time it was impounded, the appellant’s vehicle had been stopped by the police and Gordon Dutton (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.

2At the hearing, the appellant confirmed that she appealed on two grounds. Firstly, as set out in her Notice of Appeal, on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship to her because she has ongoing cancer treatments at a hospital in downtown Toronto which the appellant has had to reschedule due to lack of transportation and she needs to have these procedures in a timely manner. At the hearing, the appellant further elaborated that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship to her because she is a widow and lives on pension income. Secondly, she appealed on the ground that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence of the driver of the vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then subject to the ignition interlock condition.

issueS

3The issues in dispute are:

i. Issue 1: Will the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”).

ii. Issue 2: Did the appellant exercise due diligence in determining whether the driver’s licence was subject to an ignition interlock condition in accordance with s. 50.2(3)(c) of the HTA.

RESULT

4I find that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. As a result, it is unnecessary to consider the appellant’s due diligence ground of appeal.

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. The appellant appeals on grounds (c), that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then subject to an ignition interlock condition, and (d), that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

7Section 55.1(1) provides that where an officer is satisfied that a person driving a motor vehicle on a highway while his or her driver’s licence is under suspension, or in contravention of a condition that prohibits him or her from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device, shall detain the vehicle and shall impound it under s. 55.1(3).

Issue 1: The impoundment will 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 result in exceptional