Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18337/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:

Shannon Rees

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Gurleen Thethi

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Shannon Rees, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Martin He, Agent

Ian Sookram, Agent

HEARD By Teleconference: Friday, March 6, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Shannon Rees, (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 Saturday, February 21, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, P.R (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 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.

13At the time of the impoundment, the appellant testified that she was not actively driving the impounded vehicle due to expired licence plates and had not done so for several months. She ordinarily relied on a different vehicle; however, that vehicle has recently become inoperable and remains at a mechanic’s shop because the appellant lacks the financial means to complete the repairs. Accordingly, the appellant testified that she does not currently have access to any reliable personal vehicle.

14The appellant testified that she lives alone with her son and does not have friends or family nearby who are able to provide transportation. The appellant testified to using public transit for basic needs such as nearby grocery shopping, which she often manages by walking.

15The appellant testified that she is a real estate agent whose work requires travel at varying and unpredictable times. Her duties regularly involve attending multiple properties in different locations on the same day and, at times, transporting clients. She further testified that while public transit is accessible, it is not a reliable or practical option for her employment given the variability of her schedule and the expectation that she may attend up to five properties in a single day. She further stated that, during the impoundment period, she has reduced her outings and has missed some medical appointments for herself and for her son. The appellant also testified that the real estate market has been slow, which has negatively affected her work opportunities.

16The appellant testified that she has no funds to rent a vehicle or to make regular use of taxis or ride-share services. The appellant testified that the cost of a single ride-share trip to Toronto can reach approximately $150.00, rendering such services economically inaccessible.

17The respondent submits that rental vehicles, taxis, ride-sharing services, and public transit constitute reasonable alternatives for the appellant.

18I find that the appellant has not established that she does not have reasonable transportation alternatives. While the evidence demonstrates that the appellant does not presently have access to a reliable personal vehicle and faces financial constraints, the alternatives identified, namely public transit, remain available to her, albeit inconvenient or less desirable. The appellant’s evidence primarily establishes inconvenience and disruption rather than a complete loss of reasonable alternatives. Importantly, the specific vehicle impounded was not being driven at the time due to expired licence plates, and there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the appellant is unable to manage without that vehicle during the impoundment period.

19I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative 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:

i. 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.