Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17726/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:

Keyanna Cooke

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Gurleen Thethi

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Keyanna Cooke, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Agent

HEARD by teleconference: Tuesday, October 28, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Keyanna Cooke, (the “appellant”), appeals the impoundment of their 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 Thursday, September 11, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, W.A.O (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.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

3At the beginning of the hearing, the respondent submitted that she had not been served a copy of the appellant’s submissions. I heard submissions from both parties. I found that excluding the documentation would cause undue prejudice to the appellant. Admitting the applicant’s submissions ensures that the appellant’s right to be heard is preserved without causing undue prejudice to the respondent. I ordered that the documents be included, and provided the respondent with half an hour to review the package prior to proceeding with the hearing.

ISSUES

4The issue in dispute is:

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

RESULT

5For the reasons set out below the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

6For the Tribunal to order the Registrar to release a vehicle that has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1 the Act, an appellant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they satisfy one or more of the grounds for 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

7I 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”).

8The 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.

9If 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.

10If 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.

11The 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).

12The Tribunal can never consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to a person.

Alternative to the impounded vehicle

13I am not satisfied that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

14The appellant testified that she requires her vehicle for commuting to work and transporting her daughter to and from school. She testified that she has no other vehicle, no family or friends nearby who could assist, and cannot afford a rental vehicle as she does not possess a credit card. The appellant has applied for a credit card, but further testified that she is unable to afford the cost of a rental vehicle upward of $40.00 a day.

15The appellant testified that during the impound period she has been taking public transportation and has used ridesharing apps. She stated that public transportation schedules often cause her to be late for work and for picking up her daughter. The appellant testified that she has used delivery services for groceries and prescriptions. With respect to medical appointments, the appellant has made efforts to reschedule them virtually or schedule them closer, at clinics near her home.

16The respondent testified that the appellant has utilized alternative modes of transportation, including ridesharing apps and public transportation, during the impoundment period.

17While the appellant described significant challenges, including reliance on costly and unreliable public transportation, a high-risk pregnancy at seven months, and having to miss and reschedule medical appointments, the evidence demonstrates that she has utilized alternative means such as public transit, ridesharing, the GO Train, and delivery services for groceries and prescriptions. While delays can occur when relying on transit, the appellant also acknowledged using ridesharing services such as Uber. These efforts indicate that reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle exist. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the appellant has established the absence of alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

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:

ii. 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: December 4, 2025

__________________________

Gurleen Thethi

Adjudicator