Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18396/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:

Rhonda Green

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Colin Osterberg

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Rhonda Green, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Leila Periera, Representative

HEARD: By Teleconference Thursday, March 19, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Rhonda Green, (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 Friday, March 6, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, Matthew Ryder (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 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.

13The appellant alleges that as the result of the impoundment she has been unable to attend physiotherapy appointments which she normally attends weekly with respect to her chronic pain condition. The location of her physiotherapist is about 20 minutes from her home by car. She agrees that she could take a taxi to her appointments but says that would be expensive. The appellant says that she is able to do home exercises and tries to do so regularly.

14The appellant also says that she will have trouble attending her appointment with her chronic pain specialist without a car although her daughter intended to drive her to her appointment the day following the hearing.

15The appellant has been able to complete her usual errands including grocery shopping since the impoundment by having a local friend assist her with those activities.

16The appellant owns another vehicle, a 2015 Volkswagen in addition to the one that was impounded. She testified that vehicle cannot be driven until a new catalytic converter is installed, which will cost $750 plus labour.

17The appellant and her partner who lives with her receive Ontario Disability Support benefits and neither of them are employed.

18The appellant has been able to complete most of her usual activities since her vehicle was impounded by making use of alternatives including having her daughter drive her to specialist appointments and having a friend help her getting her usual errands completed.

19The appellant has been missing physiotherapy appointments but I am not satisfied that she has looked into all options that may be available to her such as conducting physiotherapy online, changing the times of her appointments so that her daughter or friend can help her, using the gas money that she is saving to either take a taxi to her appointments or have a catalytic converter installed in her other vehicle, selling the other vehicle if she does not intend to have it repaired so that it can be used, or determining whether there are additional home exercises she could be doing while the vehicle is impounded.

20Further, I am not satisfied that the appellant has established that she does not have the funds to either take a taxi to her physiotherapy appointments or to have her second car repaired. The appellant did not present evidence with respect to her current financial status other than to say that she cannot afford to make repairs to the second vehicle. In my view this is insufficient to establish that these alternatives are not available to her.

21I am not satisfied that the appellant has explored all of the options that might eliminate or adequately mitigate her losses and am not satisfied that the appellant has no alternative to the impounded vehicle in accordance with the Regulation.

22The appellant testified that the significant financial impact of the impoundment will be the cost of having the vehicle released from impoundment once the impoundment period is over. This is regrettable but according to the Regulation financial losses that result from the impoundment are not to be considered unless it is determined that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. I have found the appellant has not established that there is no alternative and therefore the cost of the impoundment cannot be considered.

23Since 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.

24For 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

25I find that:

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

ORDER

26The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.