Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18336/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:

Robert Meeks

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Gurleen Thethi

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Robert Meeks, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Martin He, Agent

Ian Sookram, Agent

HEARD By Teleconference: Friday, March 13, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Robert Meeks, (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 Saturday, February 21, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, E.S.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.

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 of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to release a vehicle that has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1 of 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.

6The Registrar presented evidence that the vehicle was stopped by police while it was being driven by E.S.K whose licence was suspended due to a prescribed Criminal Code conviction. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was validly impounded.

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 testified that he lives in a rural area and that there is no public transportation available. He explained that the impounded vehicle is currently being replaced by a rental vehicle at a cost of approximately $742.00 per week, which he stated is the cheapest option that was available to him. The appellant indicated that he requires transportation primarily to attend work, as he is employed on an early shift from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and delivers parts twice daily on a route between Barrie and Alliston. He advised that missing work could result in termination and that his employer has been unable to adjust his schedule or provide accommodations because he is the only employee working that early shift.

15The appellant further testified that he does not own another vehicle and that while he lives with a roommate who owns a vehicle, their work schedules do not align, making shared transportation impractical. He stated that family members are unavailable to assist, as each has only one vehicle which they require for their own use. The appellant also testified that friends were unable to provide regular transportation for similar reasons.

16Alternative transportation options such as taxis, Uber, or ride‑share services were considered, but the appellant testified that these would cost approximately $50.00 each way. Despite these costs, the appellant acknowledged that he has used a taxi service and a rental vehicle to continue attending work and to obtain groceries and essentials. He also testified to borrowing $300.00 from his father to assist with grocery expenses during this period.

17While the appellant emphasized the financial strain caused by the rental and transportation costs, the evidence demonstrates that alternative means of transportation are available and have, in fact, been used to mitigate the impact of the impoundment. These alternatives, namely the rental vehicle and taxis, though inconvenient and costly, allow him to continue working and meeting essential needs. As a result, I am not satisfied that the appellant has established that there are no alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

18Since 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

19I find that:

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

ORDER

20The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.