SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Alisa Chaly, Applicant
AND: Ontario (Ministry of Transportation), Respondent
BEFORE: D. L. Edwards J.
HEARD: In writing – April 21, 2020
E N D O R S E M E N T -- COVID 19 PROTOCOL
1AS A RESULT OF COVID-19, this determination of urgency is made pursuant to the Notice to the Profession of the Chief Justice of Ontario. Under that Notice, the regular operations of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice have been suspended since March 15, 2020, until further notice.
2Here the Applicant seeks to proceed with an Application on an urgent basis for a declaration that imposing and enforcing an ignition interlock condition on a valid Ontario Driver’s Licence during the COVID-19 pandemic is a breach of sections 6(2) and 12 of the Charter.
3The Applicant’s driver’s licence was suspended from April 25, 2018 until April 24, 2020 for two driving-related criminal convictions. After April 24, 2020 she will have a valid Ontario Driver’s licence, provided she has an operational ignition interlock in any vehicle that she operates.
4The Applicant is on social assistance and has applied for ODSP. She shares a car with her mother who will be retiring in July on a pension. It appears from the materials, although it is not clear, that the Applicant and her mother live together.
5The Applicant indicates that there is now only one service provider for the ignition interlock, whereas prior to the pandemic there were two. She questions whether the unit can be properly sanitized.
6The Application potentially raises some complex issues regarding the application of the Charter to administrative functions; the nature of a driver’s licence; and the impact of the pandemic on those issues.
7The definition of “Urgent” under the Provincial Direction is matters that are “urgent and time-sensitive motions and applications in civil and commercial list matters, where immediate and significant financial repercussions may result if there is no judicial hearing”.
8I am not persuaded that this matter is urgent. There is some indication that obtaining the ignition interlock may be difficult, but it is available. Further, the Applicant does not require the same for her employment. She says that she shares the car with her mother, by which I conclude that her mother alone has been driving that car for the last two years as the Applicant was legally precluded from so doing. Although she does not clearly state, I concluded that the Applicant resides with her mother.
14For the last two years the Applicant has adapted to not having the right to drive a car. I do not believe that there will be an immediate and significant financial repercussion if this Application is not heard forthwith.
16I deny the request to have the matter heard on an urgent basis.
D.L. Edwards J.
Date: April 21, 2020