Tribunals Ontario

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16622/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 under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while suspended

Between:

Sarah L. Wortman Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: No one attended

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent

HEARD: January 17, 2025

OVERVIEW

1A teleconference hearing was scheduled for January 17, 2025 to consider the appeal of Sarah L. Wortman, the appellant, of the impoundment of her 2011 Toyota (the "vehicle") on December 26, 2024 for 45 days when it found to be driven by Michael Dennis VanSickle without a valid driver's licence.

2The appellant's Notice of Appeal indicates that the appellant appealed on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship because she needs the vehicle to attend her employment, schooling and her daughter's schooling and extracurriculars.

3The appellant did not attend the hearing despite having been given notice of the hearing by the Tribunal. I waited 30 minutes for the appellant to attend the hearing but she failed to do so. During the 30 minute waiting period, Tribunal staff sent an email to the appellant reminding her of the hearing, as well as a detailed voice message left on the number provided on the Appellant's Notice of Appeal, but did not receive any response within the 30 minutes. The Tribunal had also given the appellant written notice of the hearing on January 10, 2025, and a written reminder of the hearing date on January 14, 2025.

4Rule 3.7.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 provides that if a party who has been given notice of a hearing does not attend their hearing within 30 minutes of the schedule start time of the hearing, the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party. I proceeded with the hearing.

5The appellant's Notice of Appeal indicates that the sole ground of appeal advanced by the appellant is exceptional hardship.

6As a result, the hearing proceeded on the ground of exceptional hardship.

ISSUE

7The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

result

8I confirm the impoundment of the appellant's vehicle. I find that the appellant brought forward no evidence to support a finding that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ANALYSIS

9The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (the "HTA") may, pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle.

10An owner may appeal only on the grounds set out in s. 50.2(3), (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the HTA. The Notice of Appeal makes statements which indicate that appellant appeals on ground (d), that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship?

11I find that the impoundment did not result in exceptional hardship because the appellant had alternatives available to the impounded vehicle.

12Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the "Regulation") sets out the criteria and factors that I must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment. In order to establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement, as set out in s. 10 (1) of the Regulation, is that there must be no alternative to the impounded vehicle. Subsection 10(4) states that in order to show that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle:

...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.

13If the appellant is able to establish that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle then under s. 10(1), I must consider whether the impoundment will result in:

(a) a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle; or

(b) a threat to the public health and safety or to the environment or property of a community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used.

14I can only consider financial, employment and education or training losses listed in s. 10(2) of the Regulation if the appellant first establishes that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

15Pursuant to s. 10(2)(a) of the Regulation, the Tribunal may never consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to any person.

Appellant Failed to Attend the Hearing and Submitted No Evidence

16The appellant bears the onus to establish that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. I find that the appellant has failed to meet this onus.

17The appellant failed to attend the hearing on January 17, 2025 and submitted no evidence in support of her appeal.

18The respondent submitted that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the appellant who was made aware of the hearing date by the Tribunal on several occasions.

19I accepted the respondent's submissions and agree with them. The appellant has been given ample notice of the hearing date and did not notify the Tribunal or the Registrar that she did not intend to attend on January 17, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. prior to the start of the hearing.

20As a result, the proceeded in the absence of the appellant.

21The Registrar presented evidence, and made submissions that the impoundment should be confirmed, including the submission that the appellant stated in her Notice of Appeal that she resides in a municipality with an excellent transit system, although inconvenient for the appellant to use because of her schedule and the schedule of her daughter.

22I was left with no evidence to support the appellant's appeal.

The impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship

23Despite the fact that the onus is on the appellant to establish her ground of appeal, specifically exceptional hardship, the appellant did not attend the hearing or provide any evidence for this hearing to support her ground of appeal.

Conclusion

24As a result, I find the appellant has not established the impoundment has resulted in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation.

ORDER

25Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant's vehicle.