Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18206/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:

Lillian Kavanagh

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Kevin Kovalchuk

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Lillian Kavanagh, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: Tuesday, February 10, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Lilian Kavanagh, (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 Wednesday, January 7, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, R. V. (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 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 Registrar is ordered to release the impounded vehicle.

ANALYSIS

5The Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) presented evidence that the vehicle was stopped by police while it was being driven by R.V. whose licence was suspended due to a prescribed Criminal Code conviction. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was validly impounded.

6For 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 cause exceptional hardship

7I am satisfied that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship as that term is defined under O. Reg. 631/98 under the Act (the “Regulation”).

8The 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.

9If 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.

10If 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.

11The 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).

12The Tribunal can never consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to a person.

Alternative to the impounded vehicle

13I am satisfied that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

14I find that the appellant has established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

15The appellant offered evidence to demonstrate that she has no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

16The appellant’s testimony was that she does not have any other vehicles available to her and does not have any friends or family who she can call on to borrow a vehicle or get a ride. While there are two other vehicles registered under her name according to the Registrar, the appellant’s evidence was that these vehicles have been “scrapped” and that she still has the licence plates registered in her name. The Registrar confirmed that the information the Registrar had for these vehicles was last updated on September 8, 2023, and April 29, 2022, respectively.

17The appellant’s evidence was that she lives in Meaford Ontario. There is no ride share or public transit in Meaford. She lives in low rental housing; her rent is approximately $646 a month. She receives Canada Child Benefit in the amount of $1,500 a month and social assistance of $300 a month. She has two daughters aged 4 and 10. Her evidence was that she used her vehicle to drive to Owen Sound Ontario to buy groceries as they were cheaper in Owen Sound than in Meaford. Her evidence was that Owen Sound is 20 to 25 minutes by car from Meaford. Since her vehicle was impounded, she tried taking a taxi in Meaford for groceries. Her evidence was that since that time the taxi service in Meaford has shut down (there was only one local taxi). She further testified that even if the taxi service was still operative, she could not afford to use it. In addition, she cannot afford to buy groceries in Meaford which is why she requires her vehicle to drive to Owen Sound.

18The appellant testified that is a 35-to-40-minute walk from her home to the grocery store in Meaford. She testified that this is a difficult walk “with a four-year-old in tow”. Lately she has been walking, pulling a wagon, from her home to the food bank in Meaford to get groceries. Her evidence was that a person can only use the food bank twice a month.

19She testified that she could not afford to rent a car.

20I find that the appellant does not have an alternative to the impounded vehicle. I am satisfied that she has considered and inquired into every reasonable option that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss, including using another vehicle and making arrangements to do without any motor vehicle during the impound period.

Threat to heath or safety

21The appellant has alleged that the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle. I am satisfied that the impoundment will result in a threat to the health and safety of a person ordinarily transported by the vehicle.

22The appellant testified that as a result of the impoundment her children must take to school bus to school. She previously drove them to school because the 10-year-old was bullied on the bus.

23The appellant also testified that her 4-year-old daughter has had to miss two dental appointments in Barrie. Her evidence was that her daughter needs her front teeth pilled because they are “rotting out”.

24The appellant also testified that she has missed a medical appointment since the impoundment.

25I have considered whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health and safety of anyone ordinarily transported in the appellants vehicle. I find a threat to the health and safety of the appellant and her children.

26With respect to the children there is a threat to the health of the 4-year-old in that, she is unable to access needed dental work. With respect to the 10-year-old I find that there is a threat to her safety in taking the bus to school due to bullying.

27With respect to the appellant, her testimony was that she has missed a medical appointment as a result of not having a vehicle.

28In addition, I find that there is a threat to health and safety of both the appellant and her children by denying the appellant the opportunity to purchase affordable groceries in Owen Sound resulting in her having to walk, pulling a wagon to the Food Bank in Meaford.

29The appellant testified that she has been unemployed since September 21, 2025. She testified that employment opportunities in Meaford are limited. She further testified that there are more employment opportunities in Owen Sound and Collingwood, two communities that she requires a vehicle to access.

30Her evidence was that she missed a “few interviews” because her vehicle was impounded.

31I accept the appellants testimony that her financial situation is unstable, and that the impoundment will further exacerbate this situation. I find that the impoundment has impacted her economic safety in that she is unable to pursue employment opportunities in Owen Sound or Collinwood.

32For the reasons set out above, I find that the appellant has established that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Regulation.

Conclusion

33I find that:

i. the appellant has established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, under the Act.

ORDER

34The Tribunal Orders that the Registrar shall release the impounded vehicle.

Released: February 17, 2026

__________________________

Kevin Kovalchuk

Vice-Chair