Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18745/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:

Kamryn Washer

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Laura Hodgson

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Kamryn Washer, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Martin He, Representative

HEARD: By Teleconference Tuesday, June 16, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Kamryn Washer, (the “appellant”), appeals the impoundment of her 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 Tuesday, May 26, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, her roommate, 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 Registrar is ordered to release the impounded vehicle.

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 cause exceptional hardship

6I am 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 satisfied that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

13The appellant testified and provided documentary evidence that she has explored multiple alternatives. She initially canvassed family members to borrow their vehicles, but none were available She explored public transportation, but her college is in another city and it would take her three hours one way by bus. She has tried private driving services, but it is cost prohibitive and requires her to use two different services to reach her college. The appellant was able to arrange to occasionally use her roommate’s vehicle for a fee to commute to school. She is not, however, able to use this vehicle in the evenings when she requires it to attend her rehabilitation programming (Alcoholics Anonymous meetings). Some of the meetings (i.e., her home group in Cobourg) are a significant distance from her home and she has been unable to attend as a result of the impoundment.

14The appellant acknowledges that last week she made the “rash” decision to purchase another vehicle. She has borrowed money to make the purchase. The appellant has not yet secured insurance so is currently unable to drive this vehicle.

15I find that the appellant has established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. She requires the vehicle for education and rehabilitation. She considered and attempted to use all options available to her to mitigate any loss. The appellant obtained financing to purchase another vehicle that she can not yet use. While she has made arrangements, at significant financial cost, she has had no alternative vehicle to attend her AA meetings in the evening. As a result, the appellant has established that, during the impoundment period, there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

Threat to heath and safety

16I am satisfied that the impoundment will result in a threat to the health and safety of a person ordinarily transported by the vehicle. The appellant gave credible evidence that she relies on participating in multiple AA meetings a week to maintain her sobriety and her mental health. She has been attending for eight years and attends up to five meetings a week at different locations in Oshawa and Cobourg. She testified that since she has been unable to attend her regular meetings, she has struggled with mental health issues. She provided evidence of her regular attendance and that other members rely on her participation in these meetings. The appellant was credible and was straight forward in her evidence. I accept that the absence of a vehicle has resulted in her being unable to attend her regular AA meetings and this presents a serious threat to her mental health and recovery process.

Conclusion

17For the reasons set out above, I find that the appellant has established that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Regulation.

ORDER

18The Tribunal Orders that the Registrar shall release the impounded vehicle.