Tribunals Ontario
Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14661/MVIA
In the matter of 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 under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while suspended.
Between:
2373409 Ontario Corp. cob Capital Trust Financial Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION
VICE-CHAIR: Avril A. Farlam
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Neil Shahidi, Appellant’s Account Manager For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Representative
HEARD: March 13, 2023
OVERVIEW
12373409 Ontario Corp. cob Capital Trust Financial, the appellant, appeals from the impoundment of its 2020 Dodge, the vehicle, on February 20, 2023 for 45 days.
2The appellant owns the vehicle and leases it jointly to Aldolfo Danilo Matus-Alfaro (“Mr. Matus”) and Jose Gerardo Pascaretta (“Mr. Pascaretta”) pursuant to a lease agreement dated June 30, 2021. On February 20, 2023, when the vehicle was detained, Mr. Matus was driving the vehicle.
3The appellant appeals on the grounds that it exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence of the driver of the vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension.
ISSUES
4The issue in dispute is:
i. Issue 1: Did the appellant exercise due diligence in accordance with s. 50.2(3)(c) of the HTA.
RESULT
5I find that the appellant did not exercise due diligence in accordance with s. 50.2(3)(c) of the HTA.
ANALYSIS
6The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”) may, pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle.
7An owner may appeal only on the grounds set out in s. 50.2(3), (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the HTA. The appellant appeals on ground (c), that that the appellant exercised due diligence.
Issue 1: Did the appellant exercise due diligence in accordance with s. 50.2(3)(c) of the HTA?
8I find that the appellant did not exercise due diligence in accordance with s. 50.2(3)(c) of the HTA in attempting to determine that Mr. Matus’ drivers licence was not under suspension at the time of impoundment.
9To succeed on this ground of appeal, the appellant must show that it took reasonable steps to determine that the driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was impounded was not suspended and that it was valid. The circumstances of each case will dictate what steps would amount to due diligence.
10Neil Shahidi, the appellant’s account manager, testified that typically the appellant takes a copy of the driver’s licence of the person to whom the vehicle is being leased at the time the lease is signed. In this case, neither of Mr. Matus nor Mr. Pascaretta qualified for the lease by themselves so the appellant required them to jointly lease the vehicle.
11Mr. Shahidi testified that when the vehicle was leased in June 2021 to Mr. Matus and Mr. Pascaretta, no valid driver’s licence was provided to the appellant by Mr. Matus although Mr. Matus provided a copy of his expired driver’s licence which the appellant used as identification and copied for its file. Mr. Shahidi confirmed that it was clear from the copy of the driver’s licence for Mr. Matus in the appellant’s file that Mr. Matus’ driving licence had expired in 2020. Mr. Shahidi testified that the insurer who insured the vehicle failed to notify the appellant about any change in the insurance policy and the vehicle was insured at the time of impoundment.
12Mr. Shahidi testified that at the time the vehicle lease was signed, Mr. Pascaretta provided a copy of a valid driver’s licence but Mr. Matus did not.
13It is clear from the records filed by the respondent that Mr. Matus was driving the vehicle when it was detained on February 20, 2023, that Mr. Matus’ driver’s licence had been cancelled prior to February 20, 2023 and was not valid on February 20, 2023.
14In my view, the appellant, who is in the business of leasing vehicles, is required to do more than it did to ensure that Mr. Matus held a valid driving licence before allowing him to drive the vehicle owned by the appellant. Here, not only did the appellant fail require Mr. Matus to provide a valid driver’s licence, but the appellant was on notice that Mr. Matus did not have a valid driver’s licence at the time of the lease because Mr. Matus provided a copy of his driver’s licence which expired in 2020.
15Mr. Shahidi testified that the appellant made no inquiries at the Ministry of Transportation or by conducting a search on its website at any time to determine whether Mr. Matus had a valid driving licence.
16I am the view that the appellant’s due diligence obligation is not satisfied by the appellant relying on the insurer to advise as to any issues with Mr. Matus’ driving licence or by relying on Mr. Matus to be truthful. The insurer does not own the vehicle. Mr. Matus provided an expired driver’s licence to the appellant at the time of the lease and was not required by the appellant to provide a valid driver’s licence to it at any time prior to the date of the impoundment. Further, the appellant already knew that Mr. Matus’ driver’s licence was not valid at the time the lease was signed because it took a copy of the expired driving licence for its file.
17I find that the appellant did not take reasonable steps to determine that the driver’s licence was not suspended. I find that the appellant has failed to establish that it exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence of Mr. Matus was not under suspension when the vehicle was detained in order to be impounded, within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(c) of the HTA.
Conclusion
18As a result, I find the appellant has not established that it exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that Mr. Matus’ driver’s licence was not under suspension when it was detained in order to be impounded, within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(c) of the HTA.
ORDER
19Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
Released: March 22, 2023