Teresa Harris v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 72659

Tribunals Ontario

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16013/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

Between:

Teresa Harris Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

Appearances: For the Appellant: Teresa Harris, Self-represented For the Respondent: Sadia Ashraf, Representative

HEARD: July 5, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Teresa Harris, the appellant, appeals from the impoundment of her 2013 Ford, the vehicle, on June 10, 2024 for 90 days. At the time it was impounded, the appellant’s vehicle was being driven by the appellant’s son-in-law Brayden Reddick (the “driver”), in contravention of a condition on his driver’s licence that prohibits him from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device.

2Paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (“HTA”) provides for impoundment of a vehicle when it is being driven by a person in contravention of a condition on his or her driver’s licence under a conduct review under s. 57 that prohibits him or her from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device.

3The appellant confirmed at the hearing and stated in her Notice of Appeal that she appeals on the sole ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship for her in her ability to provide support for her family, is stressful for her, and that the impound fees will be a financial hardship.

ISSUES

4The issues in dispute are:

i. Issue 1: Whether the exceptional hardship ground of appeal is available to the appellant in this case, and, if so ii. Issue 2: Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

RESULT

5On the first issue I find that the exceptional hardship ground is not available to the appellant because she is an owner who has previously had a vehicle impounded under s. 55.1 of the HTA. As a result, I need not determine the second issue.

ANALYSIS

6The 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 (“HTA”) may, pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) release the vehicle.

7An owner may appeal only on the grounds set out in s. 50.2 (3), (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the HTA. Here the appellant appeals on ground (d), that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. However, under s. 50.2(4) of the HTA, the right to appeal on the ground of exceptional hardship is not available to an owner of an impounded vehicle “…if there was a previous impoundment under section 55.1 with respect to any motor vehicle then owned by the same owner”.

Is the exceptional hardship ground of appeal available to the appellant?

8The appellant testified that the vehicle was previously impounded in 2023. The same driver was driving the vehicle in 2023 when it was impounded. Despite this, the appellant said she loaned the vehicle to the driver because he told her that the ignition interlock device condition on his driver’s licence was not being enforced because he was challenging it in court. The appellant submitted no documentation to establish that the ignition interlock device condition was not being enforced.

9The Registrar’s documentary evidence filed establishes that the impoundment which is the subject matter of this appeal is the second impoundment of the vehicle in the last 12 months. The vehicle has been impounded as follows:

(a) September 13, 2023 for 45 days under s. 55.1 of the HTA; and

(b) June 10, 2024 for 90 days under s. 55.1 of the HTA.

10The Registrar’s documentary evidence also establishes that at the time of both impoundments the vehicle was owned by the appellant, and was being driven by the same driver in contravention of a condition on his driver’s licence that required him to only drive a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device.

11The Registrar’s evidence also establishes that the driver could have applied to complete the requirements necessary to remove the ignition interlock condition from his driver’s licence prior to the impoundment but did not do so. The result is that the ignition interlock condition remained on his driver’s licence at the time of the second impoundment on June 10, 2024 and he was licensed to only drive a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device at that time.

12As a result, the impoundment of the vehicle on June 10, 2024 was the second impoundment of the vehicle owned by the appellant in the last 12 months. Section 50.2(4) of the HTA provides that Clause (3)(d) of s. 50.2 does not apply if there was a previous impoundment under s. 55.1 with respect to “…any motor vehicle then owned by the same owner”. Clause (3)(d) provides that one of the grounds on which an owner may appeal an impoundment under s. 55.1 is that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

13The Registrar submits that this appeal results from the second impoundment of the vehicle since September, 2023, that the exceptional hardship ground of appeal is not available to the appellant because of s. 50.2(4) of the HTA, and that the appellant’s circumstances would not meet the definition in the legislation of exceptional hardship in any event.

14Given these facts, I find therefore that the exceptional hardship ground of appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) is not available to the appellant because she is an owner of a vehicle who has previously had a vehicle impounded under s. 55.1 of the HTA.

Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship?

15Given that I have found that the exceptional hardship ground of appeal is not available to the appellant, I need not determine the second issue, whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ORDER

16Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.