Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17437/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:

Manouchehr Hashemi

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dagmara Szczudlo

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Manouchehr Hashemi, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Agent

Heard By Teleconference: August 29, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Manouchehr Hashemi (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of their 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 Saturday, July 12, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, Ali Hashemi (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 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 submits that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship and testified that he uses the 2024 Toyota Corolla to complete activities of daily living including travel to his full-time job in Burlington, visit family in the Greater Toronto area, drive his elderly mom to her medical appointments, as well as work ad-hoc as a ride share and food delivery driver to earn extra income. The appellant testified that for his personal essentials, he may pick up groceries at his retail job location or may use delivery services if he is able to utilize a discount code.

14The appellant testified that during the period of impoundment, he used a combination of public transit, ride share applications and walking to travel to his job in Burlington and has not missed any workdays. He stated that due to his rotational work schedule, he needs to use ride sharing for long distances at peak demand times and the costs are prohibitive. Although he explored renting a car, his calculations reveal that using ride sharing is a more economical option.

15The applicant testified that his four siblings live in Ajax, Pickering and Scarborough and he does not have access to a vehicle from any members of his immediate family. Although the respondent’s Registered Identification Number (“RIN”) summary lists five plated vehicles registered to the appellant, two of which have a ‘fit’ status listed in the associated plate search, the appellant testified he is not able to use these vehicles during the impoundment. He stated that he purchases used cars and repairs them for re-sale, but none of the plated vehicles are functional at the moment and one has been sold recently.

16The appellant recently developed a health condition and needs to follow up with a doctor as the walk-in clinic near his place of employment was not able to assist him. His main concern is his role as a caretaker for his mom who was released from the hospital last week and requires frequent wound care due to an infection. The appellant submits that the impact of the temporary loss of his car is greatest on his mom, as he is unable to visit her in Ajax as often as he would like and to transport her to her follow up medical appointments.

17Finally, the appellant submits that his car was due to be released from impoundment on August 26, 2025 however, paying the fees to recover his car presents a financial barrier and he is being notified that the impound facility may take steps to sell his car if the car is not retrieved. This causes additional hardship during an already difficult time.

18The respondent submits that the appellant lives in Etobicoke, Ontario and has access to public transportation throughout the Greater Toronto area to mitigate the temporary loss of his car. Although taking Uber is expensive, it is an option that the appellant used during the impoundment and there has been no impact to his ability to get to work in Burlington or meet his personal and family needs.

19I considered the testimony of both parties and find that the appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no alternative to the impounded car. The appellant continues to work during the impoundment period and uses alternative forms of transportation to get to work and visit family. I find that the appellant’s mom also has alternatives to the impounded vehicle for attending her medical appointments. She resides with the appellant’s sister in Ajax and with family assistance, may use public transit or taxis for this purpose.

20I do not find the appellant blameworthy in relation to the driver’s conduct and respect his hard work and care for his siblings and mom since his father’s passing. It is unfortunate that his brother’s decision to drive with a suspended licence led to additional challenges and financial burdens, however, in my view the appellant continues to accomplish his activities by other means. Since there are alternatives to the impounded vehicle, these hardships do not meet the test of excessive hardship under the Regulation.

21I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

22Since 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

23I find that:

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

ORDER

24The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

Released: September 4, 2025

__________________________

Dagmara Szczudlo

Adjudicator