Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15274/MVIA
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 of that Act
Between:
Tara Dixon Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Tara Dixon, Self-Represented
For the Respondent: Sadia Ashraf, Agent
Heard by teleconference: November 3, 2023
Overview
1Tara Dixon (the “appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of her 2021 Toyota (the “vehicle”) on September 18, 2023, under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). At the time of the impoundment, the vehicle was being driven by Shannon Brooks (the “driver”), whose licence was suspended due to a criminal conviction.
Issues
2The issues to be determined are:
i. Whether the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded, under s. 50.2(3)(a) of the Act.
ii. Whether 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, under s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act.
iii. Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
RESULT
3For the reasons set out below, I confirm the impoundment of the vehicle.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – The vehicle was not stolen at the time it was detained.
4The appellant testified that she had known the driver for approximately 2.5 months and that the driver was living with her at the time of the impoundment. The appellant stated that she loaned the vehicle to the driver after the driver asked her if she could borrow it in order to pick up some items at the local Walmart. The appellant advised that she believed that it was the driver’s intention to return the vehicle after the trip to Walmart.
5It was during the trip to Walmart