Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18573/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:

Jenna Bradley

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Jeffery Campbell

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Jenna Bradley, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Martin He, Representative

Heard by teleconference: May 1, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Jenna Bradley (the “Appellant”) appeals the impoundment of her 2021 Ford Bronco Sport the “vehicle”) under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The vehicle was impounded on Saturday, April 8, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, the vehicle was being driven by the Appellant while her driver’s licence was under suspension due to a criminal conviction.

2The Appellant appeals on the grounds that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

3The issues to be determined are:

i. Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

RESULT

4The impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

5The representative of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) presented documentary evidence which established that the Appellant is the registered owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle was stopped while being driven by the Appellant whose licence was suspended due to a Criminal Code conviction. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was validly impounded.

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 of the Act. In all cases, the burden of proof lies with the Appellant.

The impoundment of the vehicle will not result in exceptional hardship in accordance with s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act

7Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that I must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment. To establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement set out in s. 10(1) of the Regulation is that there is no alternative available to the impounded vehicle, with s. 10(4) of the Regulation requiring the owner to demonstrate that they have considered and inquired into every reasonable option that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss, including using another vehicle and making arrangements to do without any vehicle. If I find that there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle, then the appeal will fail and I need not consider any other requirements of the test for exceptional hardship.

8If it finds there is no alternative to the vehicle, the Tribunal must consider, in accordance with section 10 of the Regulation, whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health and safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle or to the public health and safety or the environment or property of a community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used. The Tribunal may also at that stage consider if there would be an immediate, significant and lasting financial or economic loss or loss of employment or education (or an opportunity for the same) to any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle other than the suspended driver.

9The Tribunal can never consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to a person.

10In her testimony, the Appellant acknowledged that she was driving the vehicle while under suspension arising from a criminal conviction. She expressed remorse for her actions, describing them as mistakes, and accepted responsibility for what occurred.

11The Appellant lives with her partner in Dunnville, Ontario, and travels approximately 45 minutes to one hour each way to her workplace in Hamilton, Ontario, where she is employed as an associate manager at a retail outlet. She explained that, since the vehicle was impounded, maintaining her full‑time work schedule has been more difficult due to the loss of access to the vehicle. She also testified that while her partner owns an older vehicle that can be used for short, local trips, it is not dependable enough to safely undertake the daily commute required for her employment.

12The Appellant testified that she has occasionally relied on friends to drive her to work. At other times, she has used the services of a local driver who charges a fee. She further testified that, although not an ideal solution, she has stayed with her mother, who resides in Hamilton. When doing so, she is able to commute to and from work without difficulty.

13The Appellant advised that she has missed some days of work as a result of the impoundment, which has negatively affected her income. She expressed concern that the situation could impact her employment, despite having worked at the establishment for a significant period and having advanced to a senior position. However, she acknowledged that, to date, the store owner has not indicated that her employment is at risk.

14With respect to her personal needs, including groceries and other incidentals, the appellant stated that amenities in Dunnville are within close proximity and accessible by foot. She also testified that neither she nor her partner has any health issues and that they have not missed any medical appointments.

15The Registrar submits that the Appellant has reasonable alternatives to the use of the impounded vehicle. In particular, it notes that she has access to friends, as well as a local individual who provides transportation services for a fee, who are able to drive her to work when she is not staying with her mother in Hamilton. The Registrar also submits that the Appellant is able to meet her day‑to‑day needs by walking to obtain groceries and other necessities and, where required, may rely on her partner’s vehicle for local transportation.

16The Registrar further submits that, because the Appellant was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the impoundment, she is precluded from relying on financial loss or potential loss of employment as a basis for establishing exceptional hardship.

17Having carefully reviewed the submissions of both the Appellant and the Registrar, I find that the evidence demonstrates the availability of several reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle. These include transportation assistance from friends or a paid driver for commuting to and from work, as well as the option of staying with her mother in Hamilton when needed. The Appellant has also been able to meet her day‑to‑day needs by walking to nearby amenities or, where appropriate, by making limited use of her partner’s vehicle for local travel. Further, there is no evidence that the impoundment has adversely affected the health of the Appellant or her partner, nor has it resulted in missed medical appointments. Taking these circumstances into account, I am satisfied that the Appellant does have practical alternatives available to her in the absence of the vehicle.

CONCLUSION

18Although I accept that the alternatives available to the Appellant may be inconvenient, I am satisfied that they are nonetheless reasonable. As a result, the Appellant has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that the impoundment of the vehicle gives rise to exceptional hardship as contemplated by the Act and the Regulation. I also note that, even if I had concluded that the Appellant lacked reasonable alternatives, subsection 10(3)(d)(i) of the Regulation would limit my ability to consider any claimed financial, economic, employment, or educational impacts, given that the Appellant was driving the vehicle at the time it was impounded.

ORDER

19The Tribunal orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

Jeffery Campbell

Vice-Chair