Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17401/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:

Philip McNally

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR:

Jan Dymond

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Philip McNally, Self-Represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD by teleconference:

Thursday, August 7, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Philip McNally, (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 Thursday, July 10, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, Joel Barko (the “driver”), who is a friend of the appellant’s son, 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.

ISSUE

3The issue in dispute is:

i. pursuant to s. 50.2(3) of the Act, whether that 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

6I am 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

12I am not satisfied that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

13The appellant submits that the impoundment will result in exceptional financial hardship to himself and possible loss of employment to his son who uses the impounded vehicle to get to his part time work. The appellant testifies that his son is employed part time on weekends at a restaurant located approximately 45 km from the son’s residence and uses the impounded vehicle to travel to work. The son does not live with the appellant.

14The appellant acknowledges that he has the use of another vehicle registered in his name – a 2008 Toyota truck that he uses to obtain necessities and attend medical appointments. He testifies that he is retired and takes on occasional jobs as a farm worker at a farm approximately one hour away. He further testifies that he has not missed any appointments or work opportunities because of the impoundment. The appellant does not know whether his son has been able to use alternative means of transportation to attend his job or whether the impoundment has put the son’s employment at risk. The appellant testifies that he has not considered lending the 2008 Toyota truck to his son to get to work because that would leave the appellant without transportation.

15Based on the testimony provided by the appellant that he has been able to use the 2008 Toyota truck as an alternative to the impounded vehicle and the absence of evidence that the appellant’s son has been unable to find alternative transportation or manage without a vehicle, I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

16Since 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 I need not consider the remaining factors for determining exceptional hardship.

Conclusion

17I find that:

i. the appellant has not established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ORDER

18The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.