Appeal under Section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an Impoundment of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to section 55.1 of the Act

Between:

Comfi Carpets Ltd.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Jan Dymond, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Joseph Canestraro, Owner, Self-Represented

For the Registrar: Martin He, Agent

Heard by teleconference: May 28, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Joseph Canestraro on behalf of Comfi Carpets Ltd. (the “appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of a 2008 Chevrolet Expedition motor vehicle under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The vehicle was impounded on May 2, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, Michael A. Henry (the “driver”) was driving the vehicle while his driver’s licence was subject to an Ignition Interlock Device condition of licence (“IID”) resulting from a Criminal Code conviction. The impounded vehicle was not equipped with an IID.

2The appellant’s Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) indicated in the “Reasons for Appeal” section that the vehicle was taken without his knowledge and that the impoundment was impacting his ability to run his business. The NOA did not specify the specific ground(s) under s.50.2(3) on which he wished to base the appeal. I reviewed the grounds available under s.50.2(3) of the Act.The appellant elected to appeal only on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship pursuant to s.50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED

3The issue in dispute is:

i. Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship as that term is defined under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act and O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”).

RESULTS

4The Tribunal orders that 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 of the motor vehicle will not result in exceptional hardship in accordance with s.50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

6I am not satisfied that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship as that term is defined under O. Reg. 631/98 under the Act (the “Regulation”).

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. The first requirement, as set out in s. 10(1) of the Regulation, is that there must be no alternative to the impounded vehicle. Subsection 10(4) states that in order to show that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, the 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 appeals on the basis that the impounded vehicle is required for his carpet installation business.

14Evidence submitted by the Registrar establishes that Comfi Carpets Inc. is the registered owner of two 2008 Chevrolet Expedition vehicles, one of which is listed on the Notice to Registrar as the impounded vehicle. The Registrar submits that the appellant does not satisfy the test for exceptional hardship under the Act and Regulations and requests that the Tribunal confirm the impoundment.

15In his testimony, the appellant acknowledges that the impounded vehicle is one of two similar vehicles owned by his business. He testifies that, generally, one vehicle is used to transport materials to installation sites while the other is used for pick-ups and deliveries. He testifies that the loss of one vehicle has spread the use of the other vehicle thin; however, he has not lost any business opportunities as a result. He reports that for the most part, he has been able to manage with one vehicle, although it has resulted in some long days. The appellant also states that he has been able to have some deliveries completed by his supplier(s). Other than delivery charges, he states that he has not endured any financial losses as a result of the impoundment.

16The appellant testifies that the impounded vehicle is used for business purposes only and acknowledges that he owns two vehicles for personal use.

17The appellant testifies that he has not looked into renting a vehicle because he believes it would be expensive, nor has he tried to borrow a replacement vehicle. He states that having the impounded vehicle back “would make life easier.”

18Section 10(2) of the Regulation excludes the following as grounds for exceptional hardship: (b) financial or economic loss to any person, and (c) loss of employment or employment opportunity to any person; however, s. 10(3) sets out the conditions under which exceptions may be granted. Under s. 10(3), I may consider financial, employment and education or training losses listed in s. 10(2) of the Regulation if the appellant first establishes that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

19I recognize that the impoundment has resulted in some stresses to the appellant’s business operations; however, I find that the appellant has been able to maintain his business during the impoundment period by using the second vehicle registered to the business and by having suppliers deliver products that he might normally pick up. Although the appellant has not looked into other alternatives such as renting or borrowing a vehicle, the business has been able to do without the impounded vehicle.

20I find that the appellant not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

21Since 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

22I find that:

i. As a result, of the above, I find that the appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ORDER

23The Tribunal orders that the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle is confirmed.

Jan Dymond

Vice-Chair