Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18248/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:
Martha Reavley
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Gurleen Thethi
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Martha Reavley, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Agent
HEARD By Teleconference: Wednesday, March 4, 2026
OVERVIEW
1Martha Reavley, (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, January 26, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, J.M (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 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.
13The appellant is a widowed senior citizen who lives alone and does not have access to another vehicle. The appellant testified that the impounded vehicle was used for medical and dental appointments, errands, and maintaining independence and mental well‑being. The appellant further testified that the vehicle was recently being used by her housekeeper after the housekeeper’s own vehicle was involved in an accident in October. Since November, the housekeeper had been using the appellant’s vehicle to travel to work. The appellant stated that she permitted this use to assist the housekeeper and to prevent her from experiencing financial hardship.
14The appellant testified that during the impound period, her groceries have been delivered to her residence, she has used a taxi on at least one occasion, and, until recently, relied on rides provided by a neighbour, who has since left on vacation. The appellant testified that public transportation is not easily accessible given the appellant’s location, age, and winter conditions. Further, the appellant testified that renting a vehicle would be expensive for a retiree and that the loss of the vehicle has negatively affected the appellant’s mental health.
15The appellant further testified that, as a result of the impoundment, she has missed both an eye appointment and a veterinary appointment. The appellant stated that her housekeeper will attend to obtaining the necessary prescriptions on her behalf, and that her housekeeper had recently acquired a new vehicle.
16The respondent submits that the appellant has access to alternative transportation options, including taxi services, rides from others, and grocery delivery services, and that these options are sufficient to mitigate the hardship associated with the loss of the vehicle.
17I note that the appellant’s own evidence confirms the use of such alternatives during the impound period. The appellant’s own testimony confirms that the appellant has used grocery delivery services, has taken a taxi during the impound period, and had access to rides from a neighbor until recently. The appellant has also received assistance from her housekeeper, who now has a vehicle. While these options may be less convenient or more costly than using a personal vehicle, inconvenience or additional expense alone do not demonstrate the absence of reasonable alternatives.
18I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.
19Since 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
20I find that:
i. the appellant has not established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
ORDER
21The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.
Released: March 27, 2026
__________________________
Gurleen Thethi
Adjudicator