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:

Aubrey Bros. Construction Inc.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Jan Dymond, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Steven Aubrey, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Sadia Ashraf, Agent

Heard by teleconference: February 3, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Steven Aubrey on behalf of Aubrey Bros. Construction Inc. (the “appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of his 2022 GMC SIERRA under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The vehicle was impounded on January 5, 2025. At the time of the impoundment Steven Aubrey’s driver’s licence was subject to an ignition interlock device (“IID”) condition resulting from a prescribed criminal conviction. The impounded vehicle was not equipped with an ignition interlock device.

2The appellant appeals on the grounds that driver’s licence of the vehicle at the time it was impounded was not subject to an IID condition, and that the impoundment of the vehicle will result in exceptional hardship.

ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED

3Section 50.2 of the Act provides that the owner of an impounded vehicle may appeal the impoundment to the Tribunal. That section limits the grounds upon which the Tribunal can order the release of the vehicle. The appellant’s appeal is based on s. 50.2(3)(b)(1) of the Act because 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 the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1 (1); and whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

RESULT

4For the reasons that follow, I find that the appellant has failed to establish that the licence of the driver at the time the motor vehicle was impounded was not then subject to an IID condition, or that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship in accordance with section 50(3)(d) of the Act and the relevant regulation.

ANALYSIS

The appellant has not established 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 the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1 (1);

5The appellant acknowledges that there is an IID condition on his licence and that the impounded vehicle does not have an IID; however, he submits that his vehicle should be released under s.50.2(3)(b)(1) of the Act because he was not the driving the vehicle at the time the vehicle was impounded.

6The respondent submitted evidence confirming that the appellant’s driver’s licence is subject to a mandatory ignition interlock condition.

7The appellant testifies that, sometime between 3:00 and 3:30 p.m. on the day of the impoundment, he parked the vehicle at a gasoline station. He testifies that he parks his vehicle at the gas station occasionally when he is unable to access the shared driveway at this place of residence and that the gas station personnel are familiar with his vehicle.

8The appellant testifies that after parking the vehicle, he immediately left the area of the gas station and proceeded home where he was met by a family member whom he visited overnight. He testifies that he unaware of the police involvement or impoundment until the following morning when he went to retrieve the vehicle. He acknowledges that he drove the vehicle to the gas station; however, he testifies that he was not present when the police attended that gas station and that he does not know why it was impounded.

9The appellant submitted the OPP Notice of Impoundment related to the subject impoundment into evidence which indicates that the appellant was served with the