Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17869/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 in contravention of a condition under s. 55.1(1)2 of the Act

Between:

Surmanski Delivery Service Inc.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Gurleen Thethi

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Anthony Surmanski, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Agent

HEARD by teleconference: Monday, October 27, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Surmanski Delivery Service Inc., (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 Tuesday, September 30, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, C.S. (the “driver”) was driving the vehicle while their driver's licence was subject to a condition that prohibits them from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device as described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1). A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

2The appellant appeals on the grounds that:

i. that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship; and,

ii. that the driver's licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in ordr to be impounded was not then subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1).

ISSUES

3The issues in dispute are:

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

ii. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(b.1) of the Act, whether 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).

RESULT

4For the reasons set out below the Registrar is ordered to release the impounded vehicle.

ANALYSIS

5For 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 cause exceptional hardship

6I am 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 satisfied that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

13The appellant testified that he has no alternative to the impounded vehicle. His company provides third-party delivery services for furniture stores. Aside from the impounded vehicle, the company owns five other small trucks, each tied to separate contracts and fully booked. The trucks are limited, they do not have the time to make up for additional contracts. The appellant testified that without their vehicle, they are unable to fulfill contracts.

14The appellant has inquired about rental options but has found very few available. The appellant testified that small trucks are difficult to find, and most larger trucks require a licence other than the G Class held by their subcontractors. The limited rentals available cost about $450.00 per day, which the appellant cannot afford. Without the impounded vehicle, the appellant stated the company will lose contracts and be forced to lay off two or three subcontractors.

15The respondent submits that while the company’s capacity to fulfill contracts has been reduced, the appellant’s business has continued operating and has other vehicles to fulfill contracts.

16I find that the appellant has established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. Though the appellant has other small trucks, those vehicles are not available for use to fulfill the contracts of the impounded vehicle. The vehicles are driven all day and I agreed with the appellant, in that they are unable to be driven overtime.

Threat to heath, safety, the environment or property

17The appellant has not alleged that 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.

Financial, Economic, Employment or Education Losses

18The appellant alleges that the impoundment will cause financial or economic loss. In particular, the appellant alleges that without the vehicle, the company will lose the specific contracts on the impounded vehicle. The appellant testified that there are small profit margins and that as a result of the impound, he will have to lay off a few of the company’s subcontractors. The loss of income for the company as a whole will impact his subcontractors’ abilities to pay their mortgages and support their families.

19I am satisfied that the impoundment will result in losses and that they are not excluded from consideration by s. 10(3)(d) of the Regulation. I am satisfied the impact of the losses will be upon a person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle. I am satisfied the losses will be immediate, significant and lasting. As a result of the impounded vehicle, the appellant’s company is unable to fulfill contracts. The company will lose business, income, and be forced to lay off a few subcontractors. The losses are immediate, significant and lasting for the company and its subcontractors.

20For the reasons set out above, I find that the appellant has established that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Regulation.

Additional Grounds of Appeal

21More than one ground of appeal is being argued, and as I have decided to release the vehicle based on one of those grounds, since I have found that the vehicle is to be released on the ground noted above, I need not determine whether the remaining ground for appeal has been established.

Conclusion

22I find that:

i. the appellant has established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ORDER

23The Tribunal Orders that the Registrar shall release the impounded vehicle.