RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before:

Rupinder Hans

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:

16888/MVIA

Case Name:

Farthing v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Written Submissions by:

For the Appellant:

Alexandria Farthing, Self-Represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

OVERVIEW

1The appellant, Alexandria Farthing, requests reconsideration of my decision dated April 25, 2025 (the “Decision”) which confirmed the Registrar’s decision to impound the appellant’s motor vehicle for 45 days under section 55.1 of the Act.

2The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on March 12, 2025, when it was found driven by her, a driver without a valid driver’s licence. At the time, the appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended as a result of a Criminal Code conviction.

3The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that: (i) 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 under suspension in accordance with section 50.2(3)(b) of the Act; (ii) the appellant exercised due diligence in accordance with section 50.2(3)(c) of the Act; and (iii) the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the impoundment was confirmed.

4The appellant requests reconsideration of the Decision based on Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the “Rules”). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria, as set forth in Rule 18.2, are met:

a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness;

b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; or

c) There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.

5In her request for reconsideration, the appellant identities criteria b and c of Rule 18.2 as a basis for the request.

6The respondent submits that the appellant has failed to establish the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18, and thus, her request for reconsideration should be denied.

RESULT

7The appellant’s request for reconsideration is denied.

ANALYSIS

8I find that the appellant has not established any ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

9Under Rule 18.2, the threshold for reconsideration is high. Reconsideration is a limited, error-correcting exercise, not a new hearing or an appeal of a hearing decision. A reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to re-argue its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, or the weight assigned to the evidence.

10The party requesting the reconsideration must demonstrate how or why the decision of the Tribunal falls into one or more of the criteria set out in Rule 18.2.

11The appellant’s submissions make clear that she disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision. However, I find that the appellant made no specific submissions and provided no evidence that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that it would have reached a different result had the error not been made, or that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering a decision that could not have been obtained previously by the appellant which she is seeking to introduce and would likely have affected the decision.

12In my view, the appellant is attempting to re-argue her position as she disagrees with the Decision.

13The appellant reiterates the evidence she presented at the hearing, including that the circumstances are causing significant hardship and financial loss; that she is the sole provider for her two minor children; that Service Ontario staff provided her with assurances that her driver’s licence was not suspended; she exercised due diligence in accordance with the Act; that the alternatives to the impounded vehicle are either too impractical or unaffordable; and that her children are missing school and one child has special needs. The appellant made these submissions at the hearing, as noted in paragraphs 12 to 14, and 24 to 30 of the Decision, and they were considered by the Tribunal in paragraphs 15 to 16 and 31 to 34 of the Decision in making a determination on the merits of the appeal.

14I note the Tribunal considered the facts that led the appellant to believe that her licence was not suspended and her evidence that she put forward to prove she exercised due diligence. The Tribunal also considered her testimony and documentary evidence with regards to the exceptional hardship that was being incurred as a result of the impoundment but noted that she was walking, biking and utilizing taxis to take her children to school, and she was able to walk to obtain groceries and prescriptions, and was meeting her family’s transportation needs.

15The appellant has also submitted additional documentation to demonstrate the financial and other hardship her family has endured since the impoundment and without a vehicle, including that she is in arrears on the hydro bill, she is facing eviction, and her special needs child is struggling. The onus is on her to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result. The appellant is now elaborating further on what she already put forth at the hearing, however, I am not satisfied that the new evidence relied upon by the appellant would likely have affected the result.

16The exceptional hardship ground in s. 50.2(3)(d) is a high threshold for an appellant to meet, and financial hardship and inconvenience resulting from an impoundment are common. However, to meet the legal threshold of exceptional hardship, at minimum, the appellant must be without any alternative to the impounded vehicle which is not the case here.

17The Registrar submits that the appellant testified at the hearing, the evidence presented by the Registrar was not challenged in any way by the appellant, and all evidence was considered including that alternative transportation was used during the impoundment period including taxis, walking, and biking. I agree with this submission.

18The impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle has clearly caused emotional and financial stress. The Tribunal cannot, however, consider the financial impact of the impoundment or other factors in s. 10 of O. Reg 631/98, if there are reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle. Since the appellant did not meet her burden of demonstrating that there was no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, the additional evidence she seeks to present on reconsideration would not have affected the result.

19I find the appellant has not satisfied the grounds for reconsideration in Rule 18.2(b) and (c).

Conclusion

20I find that the criteria for reconsideration set out in Rules 18.2 (b) or (c) have not been met.

ORDER

21The request for reconsideration is therefore dismissed.