Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17548/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:

Meeza Omar

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dagmara Szczudlo

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Meeza Omar, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Agent

Heard By Teleconference: September 9, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Meeza Omar (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 Friday, August 8, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, Ozman Omar (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 financial hardship and testified that she uses the 2017 Chevrolet Cruze to complete activities of daily living including getting groceries for herself and her mom, travel to work, and to drive her elderly mom to frequent medical appointments.

14The applicant testified that her vehicle was detained while one of her brothers was visiting the family from Alberta. Both brothers, including the driver who resides in Toronto, borrowed her car to go out. The appellant testified that she is a licenced driver and was not aware that her brother’s licence was suspended nor that he intended to drive that day. She stated that her sister resides in Halifax and as a result, she does not have access to borrow a vehicle from any members of her family.

15The appellant resides in Toronto and testified that she used public transit for her daily needs during the period of impoundment, however, this method is significantly slower than the use of her personal vehicle and she returns home late due to the delays. She stated that although her mom lives nearby, the appellant needs to use multiple buses and subway lines to visit her. Due to her mom’s medical conditions and concerns with knee and back pain, public transit is not a suitable alternative for her mom. The appellant also confirmed that she has access to taxis and ride share applications, however these alternatives are too expensive to be financially viable on a regular basis.

16The appellant submits that the impact of the temporary loss of her car is greatest on her elderly mom who has complex medical needs. She relies on a Patient Attendance Report from Bloorwest Physiotherapy to demonstrate that her mom attends frequent and regular appointments at the clinic in 2025 and testified that she has had to cancel appointments for her mom due to the impoundment.

17Finally, the appellant submits that her car is due to be released from impoundment on September 22, 2025 however, paying the fees to recover her car presents a financial barrier. She states that she respects the law and learned from this experience and seeks a waiver/reduction of the impound fees and an early release on compassionate grounds.

18The respondent submits that the appellant lives in Toronto and has access to public transportation to mitigate the temporary loss of her car. The respondent argues that the basis for impoundment was legitimate and requests that the Tribunal confirms the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

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 respondent submitted that the appellant has access to public transportation, and this is confirmed by the appellant’s own testimony that she uses public transit in Toronto to meet her daily needs and continues to visit her mom using transit. This shows that there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle which is currently being utilized. I find that the appellant’s mom also has access to public transportation because her daughter uses public transit to visit her. Although not preferred, the appellant’s mom may use public transit that is adapted for individuals with special needs/disabilities as an alternative to the impounded vehicle for attending her medical appointments. As a result, I find that Toronto public transit is a cost-effective alternative in addition to taxis and ride share applications for transporting the appellant’s mom to her medical appointments.

20I sympathize with the appellant’s situation and submissions related to impoundment fees being prohibitively expensive and the inconvenience of longer commutes using public transit. The legislation does not permit me to consider financial or economic loss as factors unless there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, which is not the case in the City of Toronto.

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:

__________________________

Dagmara Szczudlo

Adjudicator