Kara Woods v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2026 CanLII 15044

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18265/MVIA

In the matter of an appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an impoundment of a motor vehicle pursuant to section 55.1 of the Act.

Between:

Kara Woods

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Rebecca Hines

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Kara Woods, Appellant

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Program Advisor

Heard by Teleconference: February 20, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Kara Woods (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 Wednesday, January 28, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, Tyler Darou (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:

1. 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.

13In the notice of appeal, the appellant argues that she has no alternative mode of transportation to the impounded vehicle because she has no family and friends for support. Further, she requires the vehicle to get to and from work, medical appointments and to transport her two children to and from their activities. In addition, she was recently advised that the home she has been renting was sold, and she needs her vehicle to find alternative housing.

14During cross-examination, the applicant acknowledged that Taxis and Uber are available in her area, however, they are too expensive, and she has been saving any money she has to cover the cost of the impoundment. She also conceded that since the impoundment she has either received rides from coworkers to work or alternatively she has walked to work which is a 30-minute walk from her house. She confirmed that she has not missed any time off work since the impoundment. In addition, she has also walked to get groceries and other necessities. In addition, she has not missed any medical appointments because she has been able to get rides from friends.

15I find the appellant has alternative modes of transportation available to her because she has been able to obtain rides from co-workers and friends during the impound period. I find that this was contrary to her submissions which stated that she does not have any support from family or friends. Alternatively, I find the appellant has been able to walk to work and get basic necessities such as groceries during the impound period. Although she has experienced inconvenience, I find that she has been able to manage without her vehicle during the impound period. As highlighted above, inconvenience is not a factor the Tribunal considers as part of the exceptional hardship test. Since 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

16I find that:

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

ORDER

17The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.