Licence Appeal Tribunal
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:
Virginia Doan Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Colin Osterberg, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Virginia Doan, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: September 29, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1The appellant, Virginia Doan (the “appellant”), appeals the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on August 26, 2021. At the time of the impoundment, the driver, the appellant’s son Christopher Saila (“Saila”), was driving in contravention of a condition of his licence that prohibits him from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.
2The appellant appeals on two grounds: that she 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 subject to a condition requiring an ignition interlock device, and that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.
3For the reasons set out below, the appeal is dismissed, and the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
4The first issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the appellant exercised due diligence in accordance with section 50.2(3)(c) of the Act.
5The second issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
6The respondent presented evidence which establishes that:
(1) the appellant is the registered owner of the impounded vehicle, a 2012 Toyota;
(2) on August 26, 2021, the police discovered the impounded vehicle being driven by Saila;
(3) Saila’s licence was subject to a condition that prohibits him from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device at the time it was detained for the purpose of impoundment.
7The evidence at the hearing was that Saila was convicted of impaired driving in 2008 and his driver’s licence was suspended until 2010. The appellant testified that after the suspension was completed, she understood that Saila would have to apply to have his licence reinstated and would not be allowed to drive unless the vehicle he was driving was equipped with an ignition interlock device. She says that Saila decided that he would not apply to have his licence reinstated until this was no longer a requirement.
8The appellant says that approximately a year and a half ago, Saila started the process of having his licence reinstated. She was later told by Saila that his licence had come in the mail and she then started allowing him to drive her vehicle as necessary. Other than being told by Saila that his licence had come in the mail, the appellant says that she had no discussions with Saila about the status of his licence.
Due Diligence
9The appellant says that she did not know that Saila’s licence had an ignition interlock condition attached to it before allowing him to drive her vehicle on the day it was impounded. The appellant stated that she did not ask to see Saila’s licence and had no discussion with him about the status of his licence or any conditions that might be attached to his licence before that date. She knew that at one time an ignition interlock was required for Saila to drive but assumed that Saila would have told her if that was still a requirement before asking her to use her vehicle.
10The appellant took no steps to investigate the procedure Saila would have to undertake to obtain a licence without an ignition interlock requirement, and simply assumed he would not ask her for the use of her vehicle if he was not permitted to drive her vehicle without one.
11This ground of appeal requires the appellant to show that she took reasonable steps to determine that the driver’s licence was not subject to in ignition interlock condition. In this context, particularly since the appellant was aware of Saila’s driving history and knew that an ignition interlock had been a condition of his licence, due diligence required more than making assumptions of the facts. It required steps to be taken to confirm the