An appeal under Section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an Impoundment of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to Section 55.1(3) of the Act.
Between:
Sylvia Holt
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Sylvia Holt, Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Sanjay Kapur, Agent
Heard by Teleconference:
October 6, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1The appellant appeals the 45-day impoundment of her 2012 Hyundai Tuscan (the “vehicle”). The vehicle was impounded on September 5, 2021.
2Subsection 55.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act” or the “HTA”) allows for the impoundment of a vehicle for 45 days where a police officer is satisfied that the driver’s licence of the person who is driving a vehicle is under suspension for certain Criminal Code offences. The vehicle was impounded pursuant to this subsection of the Act.
ISSUE
3The appellant is appealing the impoundment on the grounds that she exercised due diligence (i.e. all reasonable efforts) to determine that the driver had a valid driver’s licence, provided in section 50.2(3)(c) of the Act:
a. 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 subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1).
4In this case, the vehicle was being operated by the appellant’s daughter. The appellant insists that it was her belief that her daughter was properly licenced. This was through conversations she had with her daughter and other assumptions she made through observing her daughter and a plastic driver’s licence card viewed from a distance but not examined up close.
CONCLUSION
5On the evidence before me at the hearing, I find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that she exercised due diligence as set out in the Regulation in attempting to verify the driver’s licence.
ANALYSIS
6As stated above, the appellant’s vehicle was impounded for 45 days after being driven by her daughter whose licence was under suspension for a Criminal Code conviction. The appellant testified that it was her belief that her daughter was properly licenced to operate a vehicle. She based this knowledge on what her daughter told her and the fact that she caught a glimpse of her licence several weeks earlier. She admits to not examining it or taking further steps to confirm that she was properly licenced.
7At the hearing, the appellant testified that it was not unusual for her daughter to borrow her car. She does not dispute that she gave her daughter permission to use her vehicle. Her daughter was involved in two car accidents the year before, one of which resulting in the vehicle being written off. As a result, the appellant has been allowing her to borrow the vehicle more frequently.
8The appellant admits to knowing that her daughter was involved in court proceedings related to her driving. She was also aware that her daughter was on probation at the time of the impoundment. Her daughter informed her that although she was ordered to abide by certain conditions of probation, she was still allowed to drive a motor vehicle. The appellant took her daughter on her word and did not make any independent inquiries with the Ministry of Transportation to verify her daughter’s claim.
9The Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) submits that the vehicle was properly impounded in accordance with 55.1(1) of the Act. The respondent also submits that the appellant was aware of her daughter’s previous driving incidents and the fact that there had been matters before the courts. I accept the respondent’s position that any reasonable person would have made further inquiries to confirm the correct driver’s licence status of any one they lend their vehicle to, particularly where they are aware of previous accidents, court cases and poor driving record.
10In order to successfully prove due diligence, the appellant must meet a high bar (i.e. standard) to demonstrate that she made every reasonable effort to confirm the driver’s licence of any person who drives their vehicle. I was not convinced on a balance of probabilities that the appellant successfully demonstrated due diligence. There were a number of things she could have done including calling the Ontario Ministry of Transportation by phone, visiting their website, attending a local office personally and/or attending a Service Ontario Kiosk. The appellant failed to take advantage of any of these options.
11I did consider the appellant’s submission that she saw a plastic driver’s licence card at some distance which she assumed belonged to her daughter. To successfully demonstrate due diligence, the appellant would have had to carefully examine the licence to match the details to her daughter and ensure the card was current, true and valid. The appellant’s evidence shows that she failed to do this.
12I am satisfied that the vehicle was properly impounded and agree with the respondent that the appellant has failed to demonstrate due diligence. The supporting evidence presented by the respondent, including the Notice to Registrar and the appellant’s daughter’s driving abstract supports the finding that the appellant ought to have taken more care and action in confirming the validity of her daughter’s drivers’ licence.
13Therefore, I find that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities to meet the bar of demonstrating due diligence.
ORDER
14For the reasons set out above, pursuant to the Tribunal’s authority under s.50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
Released: December 14, 2021