Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18269/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:

Tanya Pettinelli

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Jeffery Campbell

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Tanya Pettinelli, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Observers: Ian Sookram, Representative Martin He (for the Respondent)

Heard by teleconference: February 12, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Tanya Pettinelli (the “appellant”), appeals the impoundment of her 2014 Porsch Cayenne (the “vehicle”) under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The vehicle was impounded on Friday, January 16, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, F.P. (the “driver”) was driving the vehicle while his driver's licence was subject to a condition that prohibits him from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device as described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1).

2The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment will cause exceptional harship.

ISSUES

3The issue to be determined is:

1. Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

RESULT

4For the reasons set out below the Registrar is ordered to release the impounded vehicle.

ANALYSIS

The impoundment will cause exceptional hardship

5I am satisfied that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship as that term is defined under O. Reg. 631/98 under the Act (the “Regulation”).

No alternative to the impounded vehicle

6I am not satisfied that there are alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

7The Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) tendered evidence that the vehicle was stopped by police while it was being driven by F.P., whose licence was subject to a condition that prohibits him from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was validly impounded.

8The appellant testified that she resides with her husband, their five‑year‑old son, and their one‑year‑old daughter. The appellant is currently unemployed, and her husband works seasonally, with employment limited to the summer months. Although the family owns a second vehicle, it is not presently in drivable condition. The appellant also stated that they do not have sufficient credit to rent a vehicle. While she used Uber on the day the vehicle was impounded, they have since been unable to continue using that service due to financial constraints.

9The appellant testified that they have no family or friends who they can rely upon for transportation.

10The appellant was candid in stating that she is able to walk to obtain groceries and prescriptions.

11The appellant further testified that their son, who is enrolled in senior kindergarten, has been unable to attend school since the impoundment. His school is approximately 20 kilometres from their home and cannot be reached by public transit.

12The appellant explained that their one‑year‑old daughter has missed her monthly check‑up with the family doctor. She also expressed concern that “something is wrong” with her daughter’s head. Because the doctor is located outside their city of residence, they have been unable to transport their daughter to her regular check-up.

13The Registrar submits that, because the appellant has access to both public transit, has used Uber, and is able to walk to obtain groceries and prescriptions, she has alternative means of transportation.

14Regulation 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.

16If the owner establishes that there is no alternative to the vehicle, I must consider, in accordance with section 10 of the Regulation, whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health and safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle or to the public health and safety or the environment or property of a community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used. I may also at that stage consider if there would be an immediate, significant and long-lasting financial or economic loss or loss of employment or education (or an opportunity for the same) to any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle other than the suspended driver.

17The Tribunal is not permitted to consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to a person.

CONCLUSION

18I accept that, given neither the appellant nor her spouse is currently employed, relying on ride‑sharing services or securing a rental vehicle is not a reasonable option. Public transit is also not a viable means for their son to continue attending school, nor for the appellant to take her daughter to the family doctor, as both destinations are located a significant distance from their home. The welfare of the one‑year‑old daughter is of particular concern. At her vulnerable age, and in the absence of any reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, I conclude that her health or safety is at risk due to the appellant’s inability to transport her to required medical care.

19Given the above, I am satisfied that the appellant has established on a balance of probabilities that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. I grant the appeal.

ORDER

20The Tribunal Orders that the Registrar shall release the impounded vehicle.

Jeffery Campbell

Vice-Chair