16224

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16224/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:

Scott Beasley

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

Vice-Chair:

Hande Bilhan

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Scott Beasley, Appellant

For the Respondent:

Sadia Ashraf, Agent

Heard by Teleconference:

September 19, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Scott Beasley (the "appellant") appeals the impoundment of his 2008 GMC SIERRA 2018 on August 17, 2024, for 45 days under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "HTA"). At the time of the impoundment, his adult daughter was driving the vehicle while she was required to have an Ignition Interlock Device ("IID") as a result of a Criminal Code suspension under section 41 of the Highway Traffic Act (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 HTA, appeal the impoundment and request an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal") allowing the appeal and that the Registrar release the vehicle.

3A vehicle owner may only appeal a vehicle impoundment on one or more of the five grounds provided in subsection 50.2(3). The appellant relies on s.50.2(3)(b.1) and (d) as noted below.

ISSUES

4The issues in dispute are:

1. Whether pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(b.1), the appellant has proven that the driver's licence of the driver was not then subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1; and,

2. Whether the impoundment of the appellant's vehicle will result in exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA.

RESULT

5I find the appellant has not established that his daughter's licence was not subject to the condition under s. 55.1(1) 2 at the time the vehicle was detained for impoundment. I further find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship as defined under section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act. I therefore confirm the impoundment of the vehicle.

ANALYSIS

Circumstances leading to the impoundment

6Under s. 55.1 of the Act, where a police officer is satisfied that a person was driving a motor vehicle while his or her licence is under suspension, or subject to conditions for certain driving-related Criminal Code convictions, the officer must detain and impound the vehicle.

7On August 17, 2024, the appellant's daughter was pulled over for speeding while driving her father's car, which was not equipped with an IID. As her licence was subject to an IID condition at the time, the vehicle was impounded for 45 days under section 55.1 of the HTA.

Was the Licence of the Driver subject to an IID condition?

8The appellant submits that both he and his daughter were under the impression that her licence had been reinstated without the IID condition.

9He relies on a letter that his daughter received from the Ministry of Transportation ("MTO"), which advises her of being approved for a commercial driver's licence. The letter further states that there is an outstanding Interlock Ignition requirement that will expire on the eligibility date and to contact Service Ontario for further information.

10The Registrar argues that the driver's licence bears an "I" for IID condition, that she never followed up on further steps to remove the condition and never received a new licence without the condition indicated on the licence.

11The Registrar further submits that neither the driver nor the appellant made any efforts to find out if the IID condition had been removed.

12Reading the letter from MTO, I find that it does not confirm that the IID condition was removed from the appellant's daughter's licence.

13I find that the appellant has not established on a balance of probabilities that his daughter's licence was reinstated without the IID condition at the time that she was driving his vehicle and it was impounded. This ground of appeal under s. 50.2(3)(b.1) of the HTA does not succeed.

Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship as defined in the Regulation?

14Section 10 of Regulation 631/98 sets out the factors the Tribunal is to consider when determining whether an impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. The first step, under s. 10(1), is that the Tribunal must be satisfied that there is no alternative to the motor vehicle available. Section 10(4) puts the onus on the appellant to show no reasonable alternative, and states:

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.

15If the Tribunal finds that there is a reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, then the appeal will fail, and the Tribunal need not consider any other requirements of the test for exceptional hardship and, further, the Tribunal may not consider other consequences of the impoundment such as economic loss or inconvenience.

16The appellant testified that he rented a vehicle on the Monday after the impoundment, with sufficient horsepower to support his work as a contractor and carry and haul construction equipment.

17The respondent submitted that the appellant has rented a vehicle, had been able to meet his work obligations and other necessities and therefore has reasonable alternative transportation to the impounded vehicle. The respondent asks for the confirmation of the impoundment.

18I agree with the respondent. The appellant has not demonstrated that there is no reasonable alternative to his impounded vehicle as he has been using another vehicle. The ground of appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) does not succeed.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

19Neither of the appellant's grounds for appeal succeed. Accordingly, pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant's vehicle.