Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17956/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:

Laura Kakeeway

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Gurleen Thethi

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Laura Kakeeway, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Agent

HEARD by Teleconference: November 24, 2025 and December 4, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Laura Kakeeway, (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, November 3, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, K.W.K (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.

3This appeal was heard on November 24, 2025. A resumption was scheduled during that hearing to ensure procedural fairness, as the appellant was disconnected and unable to rejoin. The hearing resumed and concluded on December 4, 2025.

ISSUES

4The issue in dispute is:

i. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act, whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

RESULT

5For the reasons set out below the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

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 not cause exceptional hardship

7I 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”).

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

14The appellant lives in Whitefish Bay with her husband and does not have access to another vehicle. She testified that her vehicle is required for commuting to work and frequent work-related travel to surrounding areas. During the impoundment, the appellant has managed to commute to work by walking approximately 20 minutes from home or obtaining rides from co-workers.

15The appellant is currently traveling to Winnipeg for work and incurred a cost of $400.00 for a private rideshare. She further testified that while renting a vehicle was an option, she could not afford it.

16The appellant testified that she normally travels to the city for affordable groceries, and now relies on taxi rides to obtain groceries nearby. She has not needed prescriptions during the impoundment period. Further, the appellant testified that as a result of the impoundment, she has withdrawn from an educational program that required partial attendance in Toronto.

17The respondent submitted that the appellant has utilized alternative modes of transportation, including walking to work and getting rides from co-workers. The respondent further testified that the appellant has been able to get groceries and run errands.

18The evidence establishes that the appellant has access to alternative modes of transportation, including walking, carpooling with co-workers, and hiring third-party services. Although the appellant has experienced significant difficulties, including having to withdraw from an educational program, the evidence shows that the appellant has access to, and has utilized, alternative methods of transportation.

19Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the appellant has demonstrated the absence of alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

20Since 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

21I find that:

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

ORDER

22The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

Released: January 13, 2026

__________________________

Gurleen Thethi

Adjudicator