Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17484/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

Between:

Gurpratap Randhawa

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR:

Avril A. Farlam

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Gurpratap Randhawa, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: By Teleconference Monday, August 25, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Gurpratap Randhawa, (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 Tuesday, August 5, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, Kejel Campbell (the “driver”) was driving the vehicle without a valid driver’s 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 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 testified that drives for a living, needs the vehicle to earn a living, and without access to his vehicle will face severe financial hardship.

14The appellant also testified that he lives in an urban municipality which has public transit, including the bus, and he can and has walked to the grocery store several blocks from his home during the impoundment period.

15In addition, the appellant testified that during the impoundment period his sisters have prepared food for him which he freezes, his cousin has driven him to a job interview, and also that he has not been going anywhere because he is not working. During the impoundment period the appellant has applied for employment with seven different companies to do work non-driving work that he has experience doing, has had one interview and hopes to hear back from one or more of the companies to which he has applied for employment but is not sure if he will.

16Although the appellant spoke of the inconvenience of taking the bus, this is not a factor which the Tribunal can take into consideration.

17Because the appellant has public bus transit available to him as alternatives to the impounded vehicle, I am unable to consider the appellant’s submissions related to financial or economic loss. The appellant’s preference to drive his own vehicle as opposed to taking the bus is a matter of convenience which I am not permitted to consider in determining whether there is exceptional hardship.

18I find that the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle including public transit, some transportation provided a family member and by walking. The appellant has taken steps to obtain employment which does not directly involve his vehicle and for which he has experience. Therefore I find the appellant has not established the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA and s. 10 of the Regulation.

19I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

20Since 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

21I find that:

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

ORDER

22The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

Released: September 3, 2025

__________________________

Avril A. Farlam

Vice-Chair