LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario
Citation: Auto Zone & Rentals Inc. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2016 ONLAT 10149
Date: 2016-08-02
Appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an Impoundment pursuant to section 55.1(3) of the Act
Between:
Auto Zone & Rentals Inc. Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Linda P. Lamoureux, Executive Chair
Written Submissions By:
For the Appellant: Syed Gilani, Agent
For the Respondent: Matthew Peachey, Counsel
Date of Order: August 2, 2016
Overview
On June 1, 2016, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) issued its decision in 10149 v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles. On June 20, 2016, I undertook a reconsideration of this decision on my own initiative pursuant to Rule 18 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.
For the reasons that follow, I find that the Tribunal committed significant errors of law and fact in its interpretation and application of the term “stolen” in this decision, such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different conclusion.
Background
This matter concerns an appeal to the Tribunal by Auto Zone & Rentals Inc. (the “Appellant”) against the impoundment of the Appellant’s motor vehicle. The vehicle had been impounded under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act (the “HTA”) because it was being driven by a person whose driver’s licence was suspended.
Pursuant to s. 50.2(3) of the HTA, the only grounds for an appeal of a vehicle impoundment to the Tribunal are as follows:
(a) that the motor vehicle that is impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded;
(b) 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;
(c) that the owner of the motor vehicle exercised due diligence in attempting to determine 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; or
(d) that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
The Appellant appealed the impoundment under ss. 50.2(3)(a), (c) and (d).
The Tribunal held a hearing in this matter on April 21, 2016. The Tribunal heard evidence that on March 17, 2016, the Appellant rented the vehicle to an individual for a one-week period, verifying that the renter had a valid driver’s licence and emphasizing to them that only persons included on the rental agreement were authorized to operate the vehicle. Three days later, police informed the Appellant that the vehicle had been impounded because the driver at the time of impoundment had a suspended licence. Police confirmed that the driver at the time of the impoundment was not the renter.
In its decision, the Tribunal first considered whether the vehicle was “stolen” within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(a) of the HTA at the time it was impounded. The Tribunal found that “stolen” within the meaning of this provision does not require proof of criminal intention to steal and that in this case, it was clear that the vehicle had been taken and used without the Appellant’s consent. Based on this, the Tribunal found that the vehicle was “stolen” within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(a), and ordered the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to release the vehicle. The Tribunal found it unnecessary to address the other grounds of appeal having found that the vehicle was stolen.
Law
Rule 18 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure governs requests for reconsideration of Tribunal decisions. Reconsiderations may be initiated either by a party or by the Executive Chair of the Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario.
The criteria for reconsideration are set out in Rule 18.2, which states that the Executive Chair will not grant a request for reconsideration unless one or more of the following criteria are met:
a. The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;
b. The Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision;
c. The Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result; or
d. There is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.
- Pursuant to Rule 18.4, upon consideration of a request for reconsideration, the Executive Chair may:
a. Dismiss the request; or
b. After providing all parties an opportunity to make submissions,
i. Confirm, vary, or cancel the decision or order; or
ii. Order a rehearing on all or part of the matter.
- In this case, reconsideration was begun on my initiative. The parties were notified of this and invited to make submissions on reconsideration.
Submissions
In its submissions, the Registrar argues that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation and application of the term “stolen”, and requests that I vary the order to determine that the vehicle was not stolen. In support of this, the Registrar cites other provisions in the HTA that make reference to use of vehicles “without the owner’s consent”, submitting that the deliberate use of “stolen” rather than “without the owner’s consent” in s. 50.2(3)(a) indicates that “stolen” should be interpreted to mean a higher standard. The Registrar also cites other sections of the HTA that allow the owner of an impounded vehicle to recover impound-related losses from the driver and allow owners of rental vehicles to apply to the Registrar for the release of their impounded vehicles. The Registrar argues that the intent of the statutory scheme is clearly for owners of rental vehicles to avail themselves of those provisions when their vehicles are impounded because of the actions of renters and that therefore the Tribunal’s decision to release the vehicle under s. 50.2(3)(a) is inconsistent with the legislative scheme.
The Appellant submits that it exercised due diligence in ensuring that the vehicle was rented to a person with a valid licence, and that the Ministry of Transportation had notified the Appellant that the vehicle was exempt from being impounded.
Analysis and Reasons
Having considered the submissions of both parties, I find that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation and application of the term “stolen” in this decision, and therefore made significant errors of law and fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision.
In its decision, the Tribunal found that the vehicle was “taken and used without the Appellant’s consent”. I find that the evidence before the Tribunal does not support a finding that the vehicle was “taken” without the Appellant’s consent: there is no evidence as to how or why the vehicle came to be operated by a driver with a suspended licence, nor any evidence that the vehicle was operated by such a driver without the renter’s knowledge or permission. The only evidence the Tribunal heard was that the vehicle was used contrary to the Appellant’s instructions. I find therefore that the Tribunal made a significant error of fact in finding that the vehicle was “taken”.
I also find that the Tribunal erred in finding that “stolen” within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(a) of the HTA amounts to use of property contrary to the owner’s instructions: such a definition broadens the meaning of “stolen” beyond the ordinary meaning of the term and what the language of the legislation can reasonably support. This was a significant error of law.
The Appellant had also raised two other grounds for release before the Tribunal: due diligence and exceptional hardship. The Tribunal did not address these grounds in its decision because it found that the vehicle had been stolen. I also decline to address these grounds because, for the following reasons, the appeal is now moot.
Pursuant to s. 50.2(5) of the HTA, on an appeal of a vehicle impoundment the Tribunal may either confirm the impoundment or order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle. In this case, the vehicle has been released to the Appellant and is no longer impounded. The central issue of this appeal – whether or not the vehicle should remain impounded – is therefore now moot, and so I am staying the appeal and varying the Tribunal’s order to find that the vehicle was not stolen.
Order
- For all of these reasons, I order that the Tribunal’s order be varied to find that the vehicle was not stolen, and that the appeal be stayed for mootness.
Date of Issue: August 2, 2016
Linda P. Lamoureux, Executive Chair