Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15859/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 pursuant to Section 55.1 of the Act.

Between:

Krista Babcock

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION and ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Bruce Stanton

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Krista Babcock, appellant (self-represented)

For the Respondent:

Sadia Ashraf, Agent for the Registrar

Heard by Teleconference:

May 15, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Krista Babcock (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of her 2022 Ford Escape on April 27, 2024, for 45 days under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

2The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded in accordance with s. 55.1 may, under the provisions of s. 50.2 of the Act, appeal the impoundment and request an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) that the Registrar release the vehicle.

3For the Tribunal to order the vehicle released, the appellant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that she satisfies at least one of the five grounds set out in s. 50.2(3) of the Act. The appellant appeals on the grounds that the licence of the driver of the vehicle at the time it was detained for impoundment was not then under suspension (s. 50.2(3)(b)) and that the driver’s licence was not subject to a condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1) (mandatory ignition interlock device), pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(b.1).

ISSUES

4The issues in dispute are:

i. Was the licence of the driver of the vehicle at the time it was detained for impoundment not under suspension?

ii. Was the licence of the driver of the vehicle at the time it was detained for impoundment subject to a mandatory ignition interlock device condition?

RESULT

5I find that the driver’s licence was not under suspension at the time the vehicle was detained for impoundment. I find that the driver’s licence was subject to a mandatory ignition interlock device condition (the “condition”) at the time the vehicle was detained for impoundment. The impoundment is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

Circumstances leading to the impoundment

6Under s. 55.1 of the Act, where a police officer is satisfied that a person was driving a motor vehicle while his or her licence was under suspension for certain driving-related Criminal Code convictions, or in contravention of a condition imposed on the licence that prohibits him or her from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device, the officer must detain and impound the vehicle.

7At the time the appellant’s vehicle was detained, it was being driven by Daniel Bush (the “driver”), the ex-spouse of the appellant. The respondent presented unrefuted evidence that the driver’s licence was subject to the condition and the appellant’s vehicle was not so equipped at the time it was detained. Accordingly, the vehicle was lawfully impounded.

Was the licence under suspension?

8I find that the driver’s licence was not under suspension at the time the vehicle was detained for impoundment.

9For the Tribunal to order the Registrar to release the vehicle on the s. 50.2(3)(b) ground, the vehicle owner must prove that the driver’s licence was not under suspension at the time the vehicle was detained for impoundment.

10The appellant testified that in the late evening of April 26, 2024, she asked her ex-spouse to come pick up her vehicle and take it back to her house because she was not in a condition to drive and did not want to leave the vehicle along the roadside overnight.

11The appellant testified that she separated from her husband of 15 years in January of this year. He still has keys to their family home. The ex-spouse came to the house by taxi, picked up a second set of keys to the vehicle and went to retrieve it.

12The appellant testified that she saw her ex-spouse receive his licence card in the mail and believed he still had his G1 licence at the time she asked him to pick the vehicle up.

13The respondent submits that the ex-spouse was licensed at the time the vehicle was detained for impoundment, but that his licence was subject to the condition. In other words, at that time of the impoundment, he was only licensed to drive a vehicle that was equipped with an ignition interlock device.

14I find that the driver’s licence was not suspended at the time of the impoundment. The respondent’s evidence demonstrates this fact, and it is consistent with the appellant’s evidence. However, the appeal does not succeed on this ground because the basis of the vehicle’s impoundment was not that the driver’s licence was suspended.

Was the driver’s licence subject to a mandatory ignition interlock device condition?

15The appellant testified that she knew her ex-spouse had a G1 licence and that prior to their separation his licence was subject to the condition.

16She testified that prior to their separation, her ex-spouse was working on completing all the paperwork to get the condition removed from his licence. They attended a Service Ontario office in September of 2023 to review the steps to have the condition removed. The appellant recalls seeing the completed paperwork in November or December of 2023 and that at least one of the forms had to be completed a physician.

17In February or early March of this year the ex-spouse contacted the appellant and informed her that he was doing much better since the separation, was “bettering himself”, and “gotten his licence back”. The appellant testified that she concluded from that conversation that he had completed and submitted all the paperwork necessary to remove the condition from his licence.

18The appellant testified that she did not ask him if the condition was removed. She assumed, based on him stating that he had gotten his licence back, that the condition was removed.

19The appellant submits that had she known the licence was still subject to the condition, she would not have asked him to come and pick up the car.

20As discussed above, the respondent submits that the ex-spouse’s licence was subject to the condition when the vehicle was detained for impoundment.

21Because the appellant’s vehicle was not equipped with an ignition interlock device, the driver was in contravention of the condition on his licence and the vehicle was impounded in accordance with s. 55.1(1)2. The respondent’s evidence is unrefuted by the appellant.

22I find the appellant does not meet her burden in proving that the driver’s licence was not subject to the condition at the time the vehicle was detained for impoundment.

CONCLUSION

23I find that although driver’s licence was not under suspension at the time the appellant’s vehicle was detained for impoundment, it was subject to the condition pursuant to s. 55.1(1)2. of the Act, therefore the appellant has not demonstrated she meets the ground in s. 50.2(3)(b.1) for the release of the vehicle.

ORDER

24Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment of the vehicle.

______________________

Bruce Stanton

Adjudicator