Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17635/MVIA

In the matter of an appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) from an impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while suspended

Between:

Erika Palma

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Gurleen Thethi, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Erika Palma, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Agent

HEARD: By Teleconference Thursday, October 2, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Erika Palma (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on Tuesday, September 9, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, J.O.R (the “driver”) was driving the vehicle with a suspended licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

2The appellant appeals on the grounds that that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

3The issue in dispute is:

i. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act, whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

RESULT

4For the reasons set out below the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

5For the Tribunal to order the Registrar to release a vehicle that has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Act, an appellant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they satisfy one or more of the grounds of appeal set out in s. 50.2 of the Act. In all cases, the burden of proof lies with the appellant.

The impoundment will not cause exceptional hardship

6I am not satisfied that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship as that term is defined under O. Reg. 631/98 under the Act (the “Regulation”).

7The Regulation sets out the criteria that the Tribunal is required to consider when determining whether the appellant has established that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship under the Act. According to the Regulation, the Tribunal must first determine whether no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available. Subsection 10(4) states that in order to show that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle:

[T]he 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.

8If the owner fails to prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, then the appeal on the basis of exceptional hardship will fail and the Tribunal need not consider the remaining factors set out in the Regulation related to exceptional hardship.

9If the owner establishes that there is no alternative available, the Tribunal must then consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle, a threat to public health and safety, or a threat to the environment or property of a community in whose service the vehicle is ordinarily used.

10The Tribunal is generally precluded by s. 10(2) from considering financial or economic loss, loss of employment or an employment opportunity, or loss of education or training or an opportunity for education or training. However, s. 10(3) provides that the Tribunal can consider these things if the owner demonstrates the following:

(a) no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available;

(b) the loss will be immediate, significant and lasting;

(c) the impact of the loss will be upon a person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle; and

(d) the impact of the loss,

(i) will be upon a person other than the person whose driving while his or her driver’s licence was under suspension resulted in the impoundment of the motor vehicle, and

(ii) will not be a result of a loss by the suspended driver of the type set out in clause (2) (b), (c) or (d).

11The Tribunal can never consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to a person.

Alternative to the impounded vehicle

12I am not satisfied that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

13The appellant submits that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

14The appellant does not work and uses the vehicle to attend her children’s doctor appointments and to take her children to school. The appellant testified that her children have medical issues, and it has been extremely difficult managing without the vehicle.

15The appellant testified that she has been taking public transportation to attend her children’s doctor appointments and drop them to school. The appellant testified that her mother has been helping her pick the kids up after school. The appellant testified that the doctors’ appointments are in the morning, and sometimes the children will miss a day of school when attending an appointment. The appellant did not provide any submissions regarding any missed doctors appointments for herself or her children. No submissions were provided by the appellant indicating that the impounded vehicle posed a risk to their health or safety.

16The respondent submits that the appellant has access to other methods of transportation and occasional assistance from her mother.

17I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. The appellant has access to public transportation. I acknowledge that public transportation has made day-to-day errands inconvenient in comparison to having a vehicle; however, the Tribunal can never consider inconvenience. The appellant does not work, and she has not missed any scheduled shifts.

18Since the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, exceptional hardship has not been established in accordance with the Act and the Regulation and I need not consider the remaining factors for determining exceptional hardship.

Conclusion

19I find that the appellant has not established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ORDER

20The Tribunal orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

Released: October 24, 2025

__________________

Gurleen Thethi

Adjudicator