Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18049/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:

Neal James Mantysaari

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR:

Kevin Kovalchuk

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Neal Mantysaari, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: Thursday, December 18, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Neal Mantysaari, (the “appellant”), appeals the impoundment of their 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 Thursday, November 13, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, the appellant 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.

2In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant appealed on the grounds that that the driver's licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension and that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship. However, for reasons that will become clear later, the appellant’s vehicle was impounded, because at the time of the impoundment the appellant was driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device as described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1).

ISSUES

3The issue(s) in dispute are:

i. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(b.1) of the Act, whether the driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1).

ii. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act, whether 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 driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was then subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1).

6I am satisfied that the driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was then subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1).

7In the Notice of Appeal, the appellant chose as one of his grounds of appeal that his driver’s licence was not under suspension at the time it was detained in order to be impounded.

8However, at the hearing, the appellant and the Registrar clarified that the appellant’s vehicle was impounded because he was driving a vehicle that was not equipped with an ignition interlock device when he was at the time prohibited from driving a vehicle that was not equipped with an interlock device.

9The appellant’s evidence was that he was driving a 2004 Chevrolet Cavalier at the time his vehicle was impounded. He testified that he had not yet had the opportunity to have the interlock device transferred from a 2006 Kia Rio he owned (that no longer functioned) into the 2004 Chevrolet Cavalier he had recently purchased. He testified that he knew he should have transferred the interlock device into the 2004 Chevrolet before driving the Chevrolet. The appellant testified that his driver’s licence was subject to an ignition interlock condition at the time the vehicle was detained in order to be impounded.

10Based on the appellant’s own evidence I find that he was operating a vehicle that was not equipped with an ignition interlock device when he was at the time prohibited from driving a vehicle that was not equipped with an interlock device.

The impoundment will not cause exceptional hardship.

11I 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”).

12The 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.

13If 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.

14If 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.

15The 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).

16The Tribunal can never consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to a person.

Alternative to the impounded vehicle

17I am not satisfied that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

18The appellant’s evidence was that he is able to walk to the grocery store. In addition, he has obtained rides from friends and is able to take taxicabs, all of which are reasonable alternatives. Although the appellant was concerned about the cost of taking taxis s.10(2) generally precludes the Tribunal from considering financial or economic loss, unless there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, and I have found that there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle.

19I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

20Since 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.

21For the reasons set out above, I find that the appellant has not established that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship as that term is defined in the Regulation.

Conclusion(s)

22I find that:

i. the appellant has not established that the driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1);

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

ORDER

23The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.