Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16075/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:
Mark Jason Leeder
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION and ORDER
VICE-CHAIRS: Robert Maich and Jeffery Campbell
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Mark Jason Leeder
For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent for the Registrar
Heard by Teleconference: July 24, 2024
OVERVIEW
1Mark Jason Leeder (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of a 2021 Porsche on June 28, 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.
3This hearing commenced on July 24, 2024, with the appellant and respondent in attendance. The respondent raised a preliminary matter of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this matter.
4If the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this matter, for the Tribunal to order the vehicle released, the appellant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he satisfies at least one of the five grounds set out in s. 50.2(3) of the Act.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
5The preliminary issue in dispute is:
i. Whether there has been an impoundment pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Act?
ii. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction pursuant to s.50.2 of the Act?
RESULT
6I find that the impoundment will was not made pursuant to s.55.1 of the Act. Accordingly, I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction pursuant to s. 50.2 of the Act. The appellant agreed with the respondent’s submission that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in this matter, and made no submissions regarding any ground of appeal.
ANALYSIS
Circumstances leading to the impoundment
7Under 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, the officer must detain and impound the vehicle.
8At the time the appellant’s vehicle was detained, it was being driven by Evangeline MacLean, friend of the appellant.
9The respondent submitted the Vehicle Tow Report from Saugeen Shores Police Services dated June 28, 2024 indicating that the a 2021 Porsche bearing licence plate number DCFF172 owned by the appellant, was impounded pursuant to a Criminal Code Offence with an impound hold for 45 days. I note that the Vehicle Tow Report is not notice under s.55.1.
10Further I note that no Notice of Impoundment was provided by Saugeen Shores Police Services to either party hereto as required pursuant to s.55.1.
11The respondent presented unrefuted evidence that the driver’s licence was not under suspension for a prescribed Criminal Code offence pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Act at the time it was detained.
12The respondent produced the Ontario Extended Driver Search for Criminal Code Convictions for Evangeline Rosalie Marie MacLean, which clearly indicated the status of her licence was Cancelled/Unlicenced/Unrenewable. The search did not indicate any Criminal Code Convictions.
13The respondent stated it contacted Saugeen Shore Police Services and advised of this finding of the Ontario Extended Driver Search. The respondent further advised Saugeen Shores Police Services that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles did not in its view have jurisdiction with respect to impoundment of the vehicle.
14The respondent stated Saugeen Police Services refused to acknowledge that it did not have jurisdiction to impound the vehicle pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Act.
15The appellant agreed with the submissions of the respondent that the Tribunal and the Registrar lacked jurisdiction over the impoundment.
Application of the Law
16I find the impoundment of the subject vehicle was not pursuant to s.55.1 of the Act.
17I further find that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles properly declined jurisdiction for the impoundment and promptly advised Saugeen Police Services accordingly.
18The legal authority for the impoundment hold of 45 days by Saugeen Police Services remains unknown, and it is unclear under what jurisdiction, if any, the impoundment by Saugeen Shores Police Services took place.
19I find it is clear an impoundment took place, but Saugeen Shores Police Services have not asserted via notice under s.55.1 that it was operating under said provisions. Further I find that the evidence of the status of the diver’s licence does not support any suspension that would fall under the provisions of s.55.1.
20I find the submissions of the parties to be persuasive and agree that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the impoundment pursuant to s.50.2 of the Act, as there was no Notice of Impoundment given by the police to impound the subject vehicle for 45 days pursuant to s.55.1 of the Act as required.
CONCLUSION
21I find the respondent properly raised a jurisdiction issue at the outset of the hearing and have accepted its evidence and submissions on consent of the appellant.
22Should Saugeen Police Services subsequently serve a Notice of Impoundment pursuant to s.55.1 of the Act, either party may apply for reconsideration of this decision or the appellant may file a fresh appeal.
ORDER
23Pursuant to sections 55.1 and 50.2 of the Act, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter. The application is dismissed.
Robert Maich Vice-Chair
Jeffery Campbell Vice-Chair
Released: August 7, 2024