Jacob Genus v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 74755

Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16040/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 for driving while suspended.

Between:

Jacob Genus Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION

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

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Jacob Genus, Self-represented For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: July 19, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Jacob Genus, the appellant, appeals from the impoundment of his 2009 Honda, the vehicle, on June 27, 2024 for 45 days. At the time of impoundment the vehicle was being driven by a person other than the owner who did not have a valid driver’s licence (the “driver”).

2The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship because he needs the vehicle to get to his employment on time and to take his pre-school age child to daycare every week day and pick her up. The appellant states in his Notice of Appeal that not having his vehicle is putting him at risk of losing his employment and that his employment requires him to often drive his vehicle to deliver supplies to job sites. The appellant also states that he is unable to afford the impound fees and that the loss of his vehicle is making his life really hard.

3The appellant confirmed at the hearing that his sole ground of appeal is that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

4The issue in dispute is:

Issue 1: Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

RESULT

5I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship.

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 (the “HTA”) may, pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order that the 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. The appellant appeals on ground (d), that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

Issue 1: Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship?

8I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship because the appellant has alternatives available to the impounded vehicle.

9Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that I must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment. In order to establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement, as set out in s. 10 (1) of the Regulation, is that there must be no alternative to the impounded vehicle. Subsection 10(4) states that in order to show that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle:

…the owner must 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 motor vehicle during the impound period.

10If the appellant is able to establish that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle then under s. 10(1), I must consider whether the impoundment will result in:

(a) a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle; or

(b) 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.

11I can only consider financial, employment and education or training losses listed in s. 10(2) of the Regulation if the appellant first establishes that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

12Pursuant to s. 10(2)(a) of the Regulation, the Tribunal may never consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to any person.

13The appellant testified that since the vehicle was impounded, he has been able to get to his employment by taking public transit including the bus, ubers, and riding his bicycle for all but five or six days but that this is making him get to work late and he believes he is at risk of losing his employment because of lateness. As at the date of the hearing, the appellant continued to be employed at his regular full-time employment and has been driving his employer’s truck to fulfill his duties at work. The appellant is not allowed to drive his employer’s truck outside of working hours. The appellant testified that the impoundment is making it difficult for him to get to work.

14The appellant testified that since the vehicle was impounded, he and the child’s mother have been able to get his pre-school age child to daycare. The appellant testified that he has been able to obtain groceries and other personal items for his children by using his bicycle, uber, bus and walking to the grocery store.

15The appellant also testified that if he has to pay the impoundment fees to obtain release of the vehicle, this will be a financial hardship for him because he is the sole support of his household and has a lot of other bills.

16I may only consider whether the impoundment will result in financial loss to the appellant if there is no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle.

17I find that the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle available to him during the impoundment period being public transit including the bus, ubers, bicycling and walking, and has had help from the mother of his pre-school age child getting the child to daycare during the impoundment period. By using these alternative means of transportation, the appellant has been able to get to his employment most days, albeit sometimes late. There is no corroborating evidence to support the appellant’s concern that not having his vehicle is putting him at risk of losing his employment. The appellant has been allowed by his employer to use one of the employer’s vehicles to fulfill his duties at work.

Conclusion

18As a result, I find the appellant has not established the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation.

ORDER

19Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.