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:
Karen Scheuermann
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Theodore Crljenica, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Karen Scheuermann, Self Represented
For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: July 2, 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1A teleconference hearing was held on July 2, 2020 to consider an appeal filed by Karen Scheuermann (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 her motor vehicle.
2The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on May 21, 2020 on the grounds that at the time of the impoundment the operator was driving with a suspended licence (the “suspended driver”). A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.
3The appellant’s only ground of appeal is that at the time the vehicle was impounded, it had been stolen by the suspended driver.
4For the reasons set out below, the appeal is allowed and the respondent is ordered to release the vehicle. In accordance with the Act the respondent is required to pay the amount incurred by the appellant as a result of the impoundment.
ISSUE:
5The issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the appellant’s vehicle had been stolen.
THE LAW
6Section 50.2(3) of the Act sets out the grounds on which the Tribunal may order the Registrar to release an impounded motor vehicle. Here, we are only concerned with subsection (a);
(a) that the motor vehicle that is impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded;
ANALYSIS
7The appellant and her spouse have two residential properties, one in the city and one in the country. According to the appellant, the impounded motor vehicle, a 2003 Cadillac, was not roadworthy and was parked at the property in the country. It did not have any plates. This is confirmed by the Notice to Registrar, Notice of Suspension and Impoundment.
8On May 21, 2020, the appellant’s spouse attended at the property in the country and upon his arrival saw three police cars in front of the house. He was told by the police that the Cadillac had been stolen by the suspended driver who had used jumper cables to start the car. The appellant’s spouse was also told by the police that they were taking the vehicle as evidence. It was not until the appellant’s spouse spoke to someone at the storage yard that he and the appellant learned that the vehicle had been impounded for 45 days pursuant to section 50.2 of the Act.
9According to the appellant, the police told her spouse that the suspended driver is part of a theft ring operating in the area and has many charges of theft against him. The appellant does not know the suspended driver.
10In cross-examination the appellant was asked if she requested the police to charge the suspended driver with theft. She did not as the vehicle was not roadworthy and she was happy that it had been removed from her property.
11I accept the appellant’s evidence that the vehicle had been stolen by the suspended driver. Her testimony is consistent with the Notice of Impoundment in regard to the vehicle not having plates. I also accept that she did not ask that the suspended driver be charged as she had no interest in keeping the vehicle. Overall, the appellant’s testimony bears the ring of truth and the respondent did not lead any evidence to contradict or challenge the appellant’s evidence.
12In conclusion, I find on the balance of probabilities that the appellant’s motor vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained to be impounded.
ORDER
13For the reasons set out above the appeal is allowed and the Registrar ordered to release the vehicle.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Theodore Crljenica,
Vice-Chair
Released: July 10, 2020