Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15200/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(3) of the Act.
Between:
Kelly Marshall
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Kelly Marshall
For the Respondent:
Sadia Ashraf, Agent
Heard:
January 2, 2024
OVERVIEW
1The appellant, Kelly Marshall, appeals the 45-day impoundment of her 2008 GMC Acadia motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).
2The appellant’s vehicle was impounded on November 23, 2023, after police found it being operated by her ex-partner, D.G., while his driver’s licence was under a Criminal Code suspension. The appellant states that her ex-partner used the vehicle without her permission and knowledge. She learned about the impoundment the following day when police called her house to speak with her ex-partner. It was at that time D.G. admitted to his actions.
3In addition to this, the appellant is also relying on the ground of exceptional hardship and states that she and her children have had to endure very challenging circumstances as a result of the loss of the vehicle.
4Subsection 55.1(1) of the Act allows for the impoundment of a vehicle for 45 days where a police officer is satisfied that the driver’s licence of the person who is driving a vehicle at the time for certain Criminal Code offences. In this case, D.G.’s driver’s licence was under suspension under section 41 and 43 of the Act. As a result, police impounded the vehicle pursuant to section 55.1(1) of the Act.
ISSUE
5The appellant appeals the impoundment pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(a) on the grounds that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded.
6The appellant also appeals the impoundment on the grounds that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, relying on section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
7The onus of proving these grounds of appeal rests with the appellant. To succeed in her appeal, the appellant must establish one of these grounds of appeal on a balance of probabilities.
RESULT
8Having considered the parties’ evidence and submissions, I find that the appellant has proven on a balance of probabilities that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. The appellant’s argument that the vehicle was stolen at the time of the impound was less compelling.
ANALYSIS
9It is undisputed between the parties that the appellant is the owner of the impounded vehicle, that D.G. was driving it at the time it was impounded, and that D.G.’s driver’s licence was under a Criminal Code suspension at the time. I am satisfied that the vehicle was lawfully detained and imp