Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17324/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:

Prentice Plumbing & Heating Ltd

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Bernard Trottier

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Mark Prentice, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent

HEARD: July 18, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Prentice Plumbing & Heating Ltd (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 Wednesday, July 2, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, Ezra Hutchinson (the “driver”) was driving the vehicle while his driver's licence was subject to a condition that prohibits him 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 ground 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 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 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 s. 10(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.

13Mark Prentice is an owner and director of Prentice Plumbing & Heating Ltd, which he co-owns with his wife, Darla Prentice. The company is based in Owen Sound and serves customers primarily in Grey and Bruce counties. The appellant testified that they have 10 employees in the field and another two in the office. Along with Mr. Prentice, a total of 13 people are employed full-time at the company. The company provides services in commercial and residential plumbing as well as heating, ventilation and air conditioning (“HVAC”). One division of the company, All Drains Plus (“All Drains”), provides sewer drain line inspection and maintenance services.

14The impounded vehicle (the “vehicle”) is a Chevrolet cube van with a 1-tonne payload, that is used for the appellant’s All Drains business. The appellant testified that the vehicle carries a water tank, an augur, a hydro jetter and specialized camera equipment for inspecting, declogging and maintaining sewer drain lines. The appellant testified that the water tank, augur and jetter are bolted into the vehicle. Because of the payload, the vehicle has dual tires in the back. The applicant submits it is the only vehicle in the company fleet with a one-tonne payload to carry the required heavy equipment, and with a closed rear compartment for carrying and storing specialized All Drains equipment.

15In 2011, the driver’s licence of the driver was suspended for 10 years, following an impaired driving conviction. In 2021, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario imposed a condition of a mandatory ignition interlock when his licence was re-instated.

16The appellant hired the driver in 2019. The appellant testified that the driver has quit drinking after his impaired driving conviction in 2011. The appellant testified, also, that he knew the driver had an ignition interlock device on his personal vehicle, and because of that, he was never allowed to drive company vehicles. Partly for this reason, the appellant testified that the driver was assigned to the All Drains business, which always requires a two-person crew; an apprentice plumber would drive the vehicle while the driver rode as a passenger. After having obtained his full plumbing certification, the driver became the appellant’s lead plumber for the All Drains division, leading and training apprentice plumbers.

17The appellant testified that on the day of the impoundment, the apprentice driving the vehicle became nauseous and the driver took over to drive. When stopped by police, the vehicle was impounded because of the ignition interlock condition on the licence.

18The appellant submits that they have no alternative to the impounded vehicle because of the payload, bolted-on equipment and enclosed compartment. They submit that they have tried to rent a replacement vehicle but that they could not find one to meet their business needs. They argue that without the vehicle, they cannot conduct any All Drains business.

19The respondent agrees that no other vehicles registered to the appellant can perform the function of the impounded vehicle.

20I find that the appellant has established that there is no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle.

Threat to heath, safety, the environment or property

21The appellant has not submitted that the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle, under s 10(1)(a) of the Regulation.

22The appellant submitted, under s. 10(1)(b), that there could be 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, because certain drains would not be treated by the appellant. However, the appellant did not establish that a competitor would not be able to perform those services during the period of the impoundment. For this reason, I will not consider that there is a threat to public health of safety, or to the environment or property, in determining whether there is exceptional hardship.

Financial, Economic, Employment or Education Losses

23The appellant alleges that the impoundment will cause financial or economic loss. In particular, the appellant alleges that the vehicle keeps two people busy full-time. Without the vehicle, the appellant submits that he will have to dismiss at least two employees in the near term, with possibly longer-term repercussions because of unfulfilled long-term contracts. The appellant submits, in addition, that the company will suffer brand and reputational damage, with further business and employment loss.

24The appellant testified that All Drains represent about one third of his overall business in terms of revenue. Customers of All Drains include four hospitals, Canadian Forces Base Meaford, a retirement home, a youth home, several restaurants, motels, campgrounds, and other residential and commercial customers. As an example, the appellant testified that, on the day of the impoundment, the All Drains vehicle was on its way to unclog a sewer drain at Southampton Hospital, and as of the day the hearing, they are still waiting to have their sewer drain unclogged.

25The appellant testified that All Drains undertakes 18 to 20 services orders per week, primarily emergency calls, seven days a week. The appellant testified that since the impoundment, they have been unable to complete at least 10 orders.

26The appellant testified that, although All Drains represents about one third of the company’s revenue, it drives about half of the business because of the follow-on reputational impact of being known as the plumber who gets the job done. The appellant argues that the loss of the vehicle for an extended period of 45 days could lead to the long-term loss of contracts with hospitals, motels, restaurants and other customers.

27The respondent submits that other parts of the appellant’s business, including regular plumbing and HVAC work, can continue during the impoundment period. The respondent submits, further, that the appellant has not demonstrated any cancelled contracts to date, or current losses to the business. The respondent argues that the driver’s actions should have consequences under the Regulation. The respondent argues that the impoundment is an inconvenience, and that the impoundment should be confirmed.

28I am satisfied that, under s. 10(3)(b), the appellant’s economic loss will be immediate and significant, because without the vehicle, they cannot carry out about one third of their business. I am persuaded by the appellant’s argument that the loss will be lasting, because their failure to fulfill their contractual obligations can result in cancellation of contracts. I accept the appellant’s submission that, even though cancellations have not been demonstrated in the first two weeks of the impoundment, they risk having contracts cancelled if the impoundment is continued.

29I am satisfied that, under s. 10(3)(c), the impact of the loss will be upon a person or persons ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle. I accept the appellant’s testimony that the driver, apprentices, and other plumbers who ordinarily use the vehicle, seven days per week, will suffer economic or employment losses during the impoundment, and possibly longer-term losses due to lost contracts.

30I am satisfied, under s. 10(3)(d)(i), that persons other than the driver will suffer loss as a result of the impoundment, as described above.

31I am satisfied, under s. 10(3)(d)(ii), that the impact of the loss will not be a result of a financial or employment loss by the suspended driver.

32For 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.

Conclusion(s)

33I find that:

i. There is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

ii. The economic loss will be immediate, significant and lasting.

iii. The impact of the loss will be upon persons ordinarily transported by the vehicle.

iv. The impact of the loss will be upon persons other than the driver.

v. The impact of the loss will not be a result of financial or employment loss of the suspended driver.

34For these reasons, I find that the appellant has established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ORDER

35The Tribunal orders that the Registrar shall release the impounded vehicle.

Released: July 23, 2025

__________________________

Bernard Trottier

Adjudicator