Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18460/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 in contravention of a condition under s. 55.1(1)2 of the Act.

Between:

John P. Daly

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dagmara Szczudlo

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

John P. Daly, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: April 2, 2026

OVERVIEW

1John P. Daly, (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 Sunday, March 22, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, Joshua John Daly (the “driver”) was driving the vehicle while their driver's licence was subject to a condition that prohibits them from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device as described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1). A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

2The appellant appeals on the following ground:

i. 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.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

5At the outset of the hearing, the appellant advised that his wife was present and will also testify at the hearing. The respondent submitted that the appellant did not provide advance notice of an additional witness and requested an exclusion order. I granted the respondent’s request and asked the appellant’s wife to leave the hearing room while the appellant testified.

ANALYSIS

6For 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(3) of the Act. In all cases, the burden of proof lies with the appellant.

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 submits that the impoundment will result in exceptional financial hardship and testified that he uses the 2011 GMC pickup truck as part of his landscaping business which has multiple contracts, including with the County of Simcoe. The business provides lawn care in the summer and snow plowing services in the winter. The truck is the only vehicle equipped with snow plow and sanding attachments, and those services cannot be performed while the truck is impounded. The appellant also testified that at this time of the year, the truck is used to visit sites to check for ice deposits and to sand as required. Without this truck the appellant “can’t make a living” and is concerned about paying his mortgage.

15The appellant testified that he permitted his son to use the truck to run an errand in town. Although he was aware that his son’s personal vehicle was equipped with an ignition interlock device, the appellant was not aware that all vehicles driven by his son had to be equipped with such a device.

16The appellant’s wife, Lynn Daly testified that while there was no snow in Orillia at the time of the hearing (spring melt/thaw), the weather forecast predicted a drop in temperatures and snow. The business would not be able to fulfil contractual obligations while the pickup truck is impounded because it is the only vehicle which is equipped with a plow and sand/salt dispenser.

17The respondent submits that alternative forms of transportation are available to the appellant and members of his household and have been used during the impoundment to meet personal needs. The appellant has access to a secondary vehicle (2025 GMC truck), and manual alternatives are available to the business using this truck (such as manual dispensing of salt from the truck with the assistance of the appellant’s son, manual shovelling, snow blowing, etc.). The respondent submits that the vehicle was impounded lawfully and requests that the Tribunal confirms the impoundment.

18I considered the testimony of both parties and find that the appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no alternative to the impounded truck. As per the appellant’s testimony, each member of the household, including his wife, son, and daughter have their own vehicles and their personal needs are being met.

19At issue is an alternative vehicle to meet the needs of the business. According to the RIN Summary presented by the respondent, the appellant owns a second 2025 GMC truck. Both witnesses testified that the 2025 GMC truck is not equipped with the required attachments and cannot perform snow removal and salting/sanding operations.

20I am not persuaded that there is no alternative to the impounded truck because the 2025 GMC truck is not equipped with the required attachments. I find that the attachments are after-market parts which can be added/removed seasonally as required to a truck and an alternate truck is available for placement of such attachments should the need arise. The appellant did not address whether this option was considered at the hearing. While I understand the appellant’s position that the impounded vehicle is crucial to the income of the business, particularly during the winter when the snow removal and salt/sanding attachment is used, the appellant has not demonstrated that the loss will be immediate, significant and lasting, nor quantified what percentage of the business relies on mechanized snow removal. I also note that the impoundment occurred in early spring and there is no further need for these services in the area.

21Furthermore, the legislation does not permit me to consider financial or economic loss as factors unless there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle for the person ordinarily transported by the vehicle, which is not the case.

22I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

Conclusions

23I find that:

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

ORDER

24The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.