Date: 2017-08-15

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:

M. G.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Linda P. Lamoureux, Executive Chair

Date of Order: August 15, 2017

Written Submissions By:

For the Appellant: Self-represented

For the Respondent: n/a

OVERVIEW

1On April 26, 2017, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) issued its decision in 10731 v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, confirming the impoundment of the appellant’s motor vehicle. The appellant requests a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision pursuant to Rule 18 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version 1 (April 1, 2016) (the “Rules”).

2For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the appellant’s request for reconsideration.

BACKGROUND

3The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on March 21, 2017, under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”) because it was being driven by an individual, K. H., whose licence was under suspension. The appellant appealed the impoundment to the Tribunal on two grounds under s. 50.2(3) of the HTA:

1. that he 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; and

2. that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

4After holding a hearing on April 18, 2017, at which the appellant was self- represented, the Tribunal confirmed the impoundment. The appellant testified at the hearing that he lent his vehicle to his sister, who did not have a driver’s licence, and authorized his sister’s friend, K. H., to drive her around. Because the appellant testified that he had made no inquiries into whether K. H. had a valid licence, the Tribunal found that the ground of due diligence could not be established. The Tribunal also found that the appellant had failed to establish exceptional hardship, within the meaning of s. 10 of Regulation 631/98 under the HTA, as he owns two vehicles and had been using his other car as an alternative to the impounded vehicle.

5In e-mails dated May 15, 2017 and May 18, 2017, the appellant explained that he disagreed with the Tribunal’s decision. In an e-mail sent June 1, 2017, he specified that he was requesting a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision under Rule 18.2(b) of the Rules. That Rule allows me to reconsider a decision if the Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision. On July 14, 2017, the appellant was provided with a further opportunity to explain how the requirement in Rule 18.2(b) was met. On July 24, 2017, the appellant sent additional submissions to the Tribunal in an e- mail. The respondent was not asked to make submissions.

6The appellant submits that he did nothing wrong. He states that the Tribunal’s decision failed to mention the fact that he had no knowledge of the driver having a suspended licence. He states that if he had known about K. H.’s driving record, he would not have let him drive his vehicle. He states that he was just “being a nice guy”. He submits that the vehicle should only have been impounded if he was the driver. He notes that now he is stuck with the impoundment fees.

ISSUES

7The issue for determination is whether the Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision.

LAW

8Rule 18.2 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.

9As stated in 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.

ANALYSIS

10I am not satisfied that the Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that it would likely have reached a different decision.

11The appellant states in his reconsideration request that he did not know that the licence of K. H. was under suspension. However, lack of knowledge is not a ground of appeal under s. 50.2(3) of the HTA. The ground of due diligence in s. 50.2(3)(c) requires that the owner took all reasonable steps to determine that the driver’s licence in question was not under suspension. In this case, the appellant testified that he did not take any steps to determine whether K. H.’s licence was under suspension. Accordingly, the Tribunal made no error of law or fact in finding that the ground of due diligence was not made out.

12Nor is it an error that the reasons did not state that the appellant had no knowledge of the suspension. There is no requirement for the Tribunal to include in its reasons a reference to every piece of evidence presented. In any event, the reasons state that the appellant did not know K. H. and made no inquiries into whether K. H. had a valid licence. There was no suggestion that the appellant was aware of the suspension.

13The appellant also argues that his vehicle should only have been impounded if he were the one driving the vehicle with a suspended licence. The fact that the appellant was not the one driving the vehicle is not a ground to appeal an impoundment. The legislation is intended to prevent suspended drivers from operating motor vehicles, which includes vehicles that are owned, leased or borrowed. Indeed, the majority of appeals heard by the Tribunal under s. 50.2 of the HTA involve motor vehicles that were impounded while being driven by non- owners.

14I understand that the appellant feels that he should not be responsible for the impoundment fees when he was not the one who drove with a suspended licence and he did not know that K. H.’s licence was suspended. However, the appellant has not identified a significant error of law or fact in the decision.

ORDER

15Upon consideration of the submissions of the appellant, and without requesting submissions from the respondent, I dismiss the appellant’s request for reconsideration.