Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18412/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:

Paul Chiblow

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Kevin Kovalchuk

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Paul Chiblow, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: By Teleconference Wednesday, April 15, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Paul Chiblow, (the “appellant”), appeals the impoundment of his 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, March 7, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, HC (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 testified that he uses the impounded vehicle, a 2024 GMC Sierra pick-up truck, to pick up stock once a week, from various suppliers, for sale in his convenience store. The stock consists of items such as chocolate bars, chewing gum, soda, eggs, butter and bread. The vehicle has what the appellant described as a “truck cap” covering the box of the truck which helps protect the stock from the elements.

14The appellant testified that he owns four other vehicles that are licensed and, on the road. The vehicles are a, 2023 Dodge Ram ¾ ton pick-up truck, a 2018 Chevrolet ½ ton pick-up truck, a 2020, Dodge Ram ¾ ton pick-up truck, and a 2017 Toyota RAV4, hatch back. None of the pick-up trucks have a truck cap or a tonneau cover. However, the appellant testified that since the impoundment, he has used the 2023 Dodge Ram to pick up stock from various suppliers.

15The appellant also testified that since the impoundment he has used the 2020 Dodge Ram to pick up items for his personal needs such as groceries. He also uses that vehicle to drive people in his household to wherever they need to go.

16I agree with the Registrar’s submissions that because the appellant has access to four vehicles that he can use, he has alternative means of transportation to pick up stock for the store.

17Because the appellant testified that he has used his 2023 Dodge Ram to pick up stock for his store and has also used his 2020 Dodge Ram to pick up items for his personal needs as well as drive members of his household to wherever they need to go, I am not satisfied that the appellant has proven that no alternatives to the impounded vehicle are available.

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: April 30, 2026

__________________________

Kevin Kovalchuk

Vice-Chair