Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18196/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:

Zahida Sulimankhil

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR:

Jeffery Campbell

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Zahida Sulimankhil, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: 02/10/2026

OVERVIEW

1Zahida Sulimankhil, (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 Thursday, January 8, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, M.Z.S. (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 harship.

ISSUES

3The issue in dispute is/are:

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”).

Alternative to the impounded vehicle

7I am satisfied that there are alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

8The Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) tendered evidence that the vehicle was stopped by police while it was being driven by M.Z.S., whose licence was suspended due to a prescribed Criminal Code conviction. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was validly impounded.

9The appellant testified that she lives with her husband and 4 children (ages 21, 18, 15 and 10) in Stouffville, Ontario. Both she and her husband are not employed. The 21 year old son is employed, however the appellant did not advise where or if the impoundment has impacted on his employment.

10The husband has two regular medical appointments per month. He has not missed any appointments as they used Uber once and the appellant’s sister took him on another time. The 18 year old son also sees his family doctor once per month and the appellant has used her sister’s car for that appointment.

11Regarding school, the 10 year old son is able to use the school bus. The 15 year old daughter and the 18 year old son are transported either by the sister or by using the sister’s vehicle or by taking Uber. The appellant testified that they have missed 2 to 3 days of school per week. However, the school assists them in keeping up with their school work.

12The appellant testified that her sister has assisted the appellant and her family with obtaining groceries and medication. Also, the appellant affirmed that public transit is available.

13The Registrar submits that, because the appellant has access to Uber and public transit as well as the sister’s vehicle, she has alternative means of transportation.

14I agree with the Registrar. Regulation 631/98 under the Act sets out the criteria that the Tribunal must consider when determining whether the appellant has established that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship. Under 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.

15If the owner fails to prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, then the appeal on the basis of exceptional hardship must be dismissed and the Tribunal need not consider the remaining factors set out in the Regulation related to exceptional hardship.

16The Tribunal is not permitted to consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to a person.

17It is clear from the appellants testimony that she has secured the use of Uber as well as the use of her sister’s vehicle to compensate for the loss of her vehicle. While Uber is understandably costly to the appellant, and while the use of the sister’s vehicle is inconvenient, those option, along with public transit, constitute as alternatives. As such, I find that the appellant has not established that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Regulation.

ORDER

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

Jeffery Campbell

Vice-Chair