William R. Hipkiss v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2020 CanLII 42653

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2020-06-18

Appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Act

Between:

William R. Hipkiss

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Theodore Crljenica, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: William R. Hipkiss, Self Representative For the Respondent: Sonia DeSantis, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: June 15, 2020

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW

1A teleconference hearing was held on June 15, 2020 to consider an appeal filed by William R. Hipkiss (the “appellant”) under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) relating to the impoundment of his motor vehicle.

2The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on May 12, 2020 on the grounds that the operator at time of the impoundment, a friend of the appellant’s, was driving with a suspended licence (the “Suspended Driver”). A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 90 days as this was the second impoundment of a vehicle owned by the appellant. On both occasions the same Suspended Driver, who lives in the same home as the appellant, was driving.

3In an email clarifying his grounds for appeal, the appellant stated that he exercised due diligence in attempting to prevent the Suspended Driver from having access to the vehicle key. He described the steps he took to hide the car key before he left the home with a co-worker who picked him up on the way to work. During the course of the hearing, the respondent’s agent explored evidence as to whether the appellant’s vehicle had been stolen by the Suspended Driver.

4For the reasons set out below, the appeal is dismissed and the impoundment is confirmed.

ISSUE:

5The issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the appellant’s efforts to prevent the Suspended Driver from having access to the vehicle’s key constitutes a ground on which this Tribunal can order the release of an impounded vehicle.

THE LAW

6Section 50.2(3) of the Act sets out the grounds on which the Tribunal may order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle:

(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.

ANALYSIS

7The appellant cannot rely on subparagraph (b) as the licence of the driver was under suspension at the time of impoundment, and the appellant was aware of this.

8Pursuant to section 50.2 (4) of the Act, the appellant cannot rely on the ground of exceptional hardship (subparagraph (d)) as he had another vehicle impounded prior to this current impoundment.

9The “due diligence” ground of appeal that appears in subparagraph (c), only applies to the steps taken by the appellant to determine that the driver's licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the of impoundment was not under suspension when she drove the vehicle. The appellant knew of the suspension which is why he attempted to hide the car key while he was away from home. Therefore, the appellant cannot rely on subparagraph (c) as a ground of appeal.

10This leaves only subparagraph (a), that the vehicle was stolen, as a potential ground of appeal. According to the appellant’s evidence, the Suspended Driver drove the vehicle without the appellant’s permission to pick up groceries. She had returned to the home she shared with the appellant before the police arrived and vehicle impounded. She did not intend to deprive the appellant of the vehicle. Therefore, the vehicle was not stolen and this appeal cannot succeed on this ground.

11The appellant testified that he learned his lesson – in the future he will take his keys with him when he leaves the home rather than attempt to hide them from the Suspended Driver within the home. This appeal must be decided on what happened, not on the steps the appellant will take in the future to prevent the vehicle from being driven by a suspended driver. This Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the grounds set out in section 50.2 of the Act none of which have been established in this appeal.

ORDER

12For the reasons set out above the appeal is dismissed and the impoundment is confirmed.