Brandy-Lynn A. Found v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 78096

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17014/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:

Brandy-Lynn A. Found

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATORS:

Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair Gurleen Thethi, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Brandy-Lynn A. Found, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Agent

HEARD: By Teleconference Thursday, July 24, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Brandy-Lynn A. Found, (the “appellant”), appeals the impoundment of her 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, April 16, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, K.P. (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.

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 impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

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 not cause exceptional hardship

6We are not 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

12We are not satisfied that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

13The appellant submits that the impoundment will result in causing financial hardship.

14The appellant lives with her partner and is the sole breadwinner in the home. The appellant submits that she lives on Scugog Island, a rural area, in which there is no access to transit, a cab, or uber. She submits that she works as a crisis counsellor in Ajax, nearly 45 km away from her home, and relies on her vehicle to commute to work.

15The appellant testified that she has been renting a vehicle for approximately $700.00 a week to go to work and manage household errands. The appellant testified that the cost of the vehicle rental and the impoundment have caused her to fall behind on financial obligations. The appellant testified that she has no other vehicles in the home, and no family or friends nearby to offer transportation. She has not missed any scheduled shifts for work but has been unable to pick up extra shifts as she normally does.

16The respondent submits that the appellant has not missed any work and has been able to use a rental vehicle for the period of impoundment.

17We find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. The appellant has been able to rent a vehicle for her commute to work and to run household errands during the impoundment period. She has not missed any scheduled shifts. She has no medical issues and has not missed any medical appointments.

18Since the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, exceptional hardship has not been established in accordance with the Act and the Regulation and we need not consider the remaining factors for determining exceptional hardship.

Conclusion

19We find that the appellant has not established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ORDER

20The Tribunal orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.