Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17266/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:
Michael Till
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Bernard Trottier
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Michael Till, Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Stephen Grootenboer, Agent
Heard by teleconference: August 1, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Michael Till (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of his 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 June 20, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, Matthew De Gasperis (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.
3The appellant filed his appeal with the License Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) on June 25, 2025. This matter is subject to the License Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the “Rules”).
MOTION
4The appellant filed a Notice of Motion on July 28, 2025, seeking compensation for impound fees incurred unnecessarily due to late filing, by the police, of pertinent documents, namely the Notice to Registrar (“NTR”) and the Notice of Impound and Release (“NOIR”). The appellant submitted that the police did not file these documents with the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) until 32 days after the impoundment.
5The appellant submitted the Notice of Motion to the Tribunal, but not to the respondent. Under Rule 15.1, the moving party must serve a Notice of Motion and all supporting submissions on the other party, before filing with the Tribunal. Because the Motion was not duly served on the respondent, it could only be heard orally at the hearing, under Rule 15.2.
6The appellant submitted that, when he filed his appeal, the Tribunal did not process it because it was missing the NOIR. This led him to inquire with the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and the police regarding how to obtain the NOIR. The appellant submits that, because of the delay in processing his appeal, he would incur unnecessary impound fees. He therefore seeks relief from the Tribunal.
7The respondent did not receive prior notice of the Motion. I informed the appellant that the driver would have received a paper copy of the NOIR, from the police, at the time of the impoundment. The appellant acknowledged that the driver did not provide him with the NOIR, nor did he seek it from the driver. In addition, I informed the appellant that a decision to release the vehicle would vacate the impound fees, and therefore the delay in setting a hearing date would not result in additional fees.
8The respondent concurred with the information I provided to the appellant.
RESULT OF MOTION
9I deny the appellant’s motion for relief based on the delay for a hearing. Firstly, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant the motion. Under s. 50.2 of the Act, the Tribunal’s authority is limited to either confirming the impoundment or releasing the vehicle. Further, the appellant could have obtained the NOIR from the driver and processed his appeal expeditiously. Lastly, a decision to release the vehicle would vacate the impound fees and, therefore, the relief sought by the appellant would be obtained via a Tribunal decision, irrespective of the timing of the hearing.
ISSUES
10The issue in dispute is:
i. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act, whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
RESULT of hearing
11For the reasons set out below, the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.
ANALYSIS
12For 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.