Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18055/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:

Jessica Fox

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

AMENDED DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Kevin Kovalchuk

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Jessica Fox, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: By Teleconference December 10, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Jessica Fox (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 Monday, December 1, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, Kyle Edmund Van Berkel (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

The impoundment will not cause exceptional hardship.

5I 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”).

6The 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.

7If 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.

Alternative to the impounded vehicle

8I am not satisfied that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

9The appellant testified that she used her vehicle only to go to and from work, purchase groceries and occasionally to visit friends. Since the impoundment of her vehicle, she has taken an Uber on twelve occasions to get to and from work at a cost of $30 to $35 one way. She earns between $840 and $1,029 a week. She has a friend who is willing to take her grocery shopping depending on the weather.

10She has considered renting a car. Her evidence was that the rental company requires a credit card deposit of $750 which she does not have. She later described the $750 as a hold on her credit card. Initially, her evidence was that the $750 deposit was in addition to the rental costs of $44 to $50 a day resulting in a 5-day rental cost of up to $1,000. Later in her evidence she testified that the $750 would be refunded when the rental vehicle was returned. I find that her evidence was unclear as to what the cost of a rental car would be. If the $750 was simply a hold on her credit card, but not a deposit, then based on her evidence a vehicle could be rented for $44 to $50 a day. In addition, she has not explored other rental options although she did admit that at least one other rental option may be available, but, she has not yet investigated this option.

11I find that it is reasonable for the appellant to use Uber transportation or rent a vehicle or some combination of the two until the impoundment is lifted. She testified that she has taken an Uber on twelve occasions to get to work at a cost of $60 to $70 round trip. A rental car costing up to $50 a day would not only allow her to get to work but also to go grocery shopping and visit friends while her vehicle is impounded.

12If I am wrong about the cost of a rental car. I find that she has been able to manage transportation by taking Ubers while her vehicle is impounded. She also has a friend that is willing to take her grocery shopping, depending on the weather.

13The respondent submits that pursuant to s. 10(2)(a) of Regulation 631/98, inconvenience shall not be considered by the Tribunal in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment under section 55.1 of the Act. I agree with the respondent in this regard.

14I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. Since the impoundment she has used an Uber on a number of occasions and has a friend that is willing to take her grocery shopping. In addition, renting a car my be a viable alternative means of transportation.

15For the reasons set out above, I find that the appellant has not established that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Regulation.

Conclusion

16I find that:

i. 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.