16284

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16284/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:

Renan Lintz Macedo

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

Vice-Chair:

Hande Bilhan

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Renan Lintz Macedo, Appellant

For the Respondent:

Sadia Ashraf, Agent

Heard by Teleconference:

October 9, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Renan Lintz Macedo (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of his 2011 Chevrolet Silverado on September 15, 2024, for 45 days under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”). At the time of the impoundment, he was driving the vehicle while his driver’s licence was allegedly suspended as a result of a Criminal Code suspension under section 41 of the Highway Traffic Act (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 HTA, appeal the impoundment and request an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) allowing the appeal and that the Registrar release the vehicle.

3A vehicle owner may only appeal a vehicle impoundment on one or more of the five grounds provided in subsection 50.2(3). The appellant appeals on three grounds:

1. s. 50.2(3)(b), 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;

2. s. 50.2(3)(c), that 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; and,

3. s. 50.2(3)(d), that the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle will result in exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

4The issues in dispute are:

1. Whether pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(b), the appellant has proven that his driver's licence was not then under suspension at the time that the vehicle was detained in order to be impounded;

2. Whether pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(c), he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that his driver's licence at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension; and,

3. Whether the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle will result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA.

RESULT

5I find the appellant has established that he exercised reasonable due diligence under the circumstances, in attempting to determine that his driver's licence at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension.

6As such I find that the factors set out in section 50.2(3)(c) of the Act has been met and the appeal succeeds on that ground. Therefore, I do not need to consider the two other grounds of the appeal.

7I order the release of the vehicle.

ANALYSIS

Circumstances leading to the impoundment

8Under 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 is under suspension, or subject to conditions for certain driving-related Criminal Code convictions, the officer must detain and impound the vehicle.

9On September 15, 2024, the appellant was pulled over by a police officer and his vehicle was impounded on the grounds that his licence was under suspension.

Background of the appellant’s licensing status

10The appellant states that he was charged with driving under the influence in 2018 and attended a remedial program to obtain his licence back. In 2019 he pleaded guilty to the same charge in court and was handed a one-year driving suspension.

11When he received a new driver’s licence in the mail, the licence did not indicate a suspension or any conditions. He submits that he checked on the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) website to make sure that he could drive and confirmed that the licence was valid.

12He testifies that he had several interactions with the MTO after that with no mention of a suspension. He applied for a motorcycle licence, first an M1 and then an M2 category. He submits that at no point during these licencing events was he told his driver’s licence was suspended. In April of 2021 he was mailed an updated driver’s licence, with the M2 class added to his licence categories. Again, there was no indication that his licence was restricted or suspended. He submitted a photo of the front and back of his licence as evidence of this.

13He testifies that he was fully under the impression that his suspension was over, and he had put the issue of his charges and his licence suspension in the past.

14When he was pulled over on September 15, 2024, the police officer told him that while the licence he was driving with was not under suspension, a duplicate licence exists which is under suspension.

15He testifies that he thought there was a mistake and proceeded to check the MTO website which again confirmed that his licence was in good standing.

16He then proceeded to email the remedial measures office to obtain a record of completion of the program that he had attended at the time of his licence suspension in 2018. He thought perhaps the MTO had not received his completion notice and that a suspension may be on record as a result of an oversight. A remedial program officer emailed him back that while they do not provide completion certificates, he could see that he is licenced and that therefore the MTO must have received the information. The email was submitted as evidence by the appellant.

17He further submits that he plated his vehicle and his motorcycle with his driver’s licence and even then, he was never told that his licence was under suspension.

18The respondent testified that the appellant’s licence has been under suspension all along and that the appellant did not fulfill all the requirements of removing the suspension. She submits that this information was contained on the back of his Prohibition Order and he ought to have read the back of the order to fully understand what was involved in removing the suspension rather than simply relying on the front of the order which indicated a one-year suspension.

19She testifies that as his court records noted him as “Renan L. Macedo” while his driver’s licence was under the name of “Renan Lintz Macedo,” this caused the Ministry to open a new file and issue a new licence which did not indicate the suspension. She questions why he entered his name as “Renan Macedo” in court and why he did not attempt to change the record to ensure it is consistent with his driver’s licence. The appellant testifies that he would have used his driver’s licence as his identification in court and that he was not sure why the abbreviated name was entered on the court document.

20The respondent further argues that the appellant ought to have followed up with the MTO as to why there was a different licence number on his newly issued licence versus the different driver’s license number indicated on the Notice of Impoundment and Release (“NOIR”) issued in 2019.

21She further submits that the remedial program he completed was before his criminal conviction and as part of his 90-day Administrative Driver’s Licence Suspension (“ADLS”). She concludes that therefore he had not completed all the steps to remove his licence suspension. The respondent argues that this a mere technicality and that the MTO has merged the two licence files since and there is one record which states that his licence is suspended.

22The respondent argues that the appellant had received an unrestricted driver’s licence was a mere technicality and that the MTO has merged the two licence files since and there is one record which states that his licence is suspended.

23The appellant submits that he was not aware there were two different remedial programs he needed to complete, and he had understood that he was suspended for one year after which he could resume driving. He submits that he relied on receiving his new licence with no suspension noted, on having multiple interactions with MTO licencing without any mention of a suspension and on his various checks through the MTO website which confirmed his licence status.

24In closing, the appellant pleads for his vehicle to be released as he had no reason to think that his licence was under suspension and that he believes he had done everything he could do confirm the status of his licence. He understands that his licence is now under suspension, but he argues it was not so at the time he was driving his vehicle when it was impounded as he had repeatedly interacted with the MTO without any notice of a suspension, and he had been provided with new and updated licences over the years.

25The respondent concludes that the appellant had pleaded guilty to a criminal offence, he was given notice of the requirements to get the suspension removed on his court documents, that he did not follow through on those and proceeded to drive. She submits that he did not do the due diligence to check on why the licence number starting with “M” existed when he received the NOIR in 2019 nor checked the records through the MTO website with the name “Renan Macedo” versus his full name. She would like the Tribunal to confirm the impoundment.

The appellant exercised diligence in attempting to determine that his driver's licence at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension

26I have considered the parties’ evidence and submissions. I find that the appellant has proven on a balance of probabilities that he had reason to believe that his licence was not under suspension at the time of the impoundment because he received a licence from the MTO in the mail which did not indicate a suspension. His belief that he had regained his licence was further entrenched because he had subsequent interactions with MTO licencing and he was never advised that his licence was suspended.

27I also find that the appellant exercised due diligence under the circumstances because he checked his licence status after receiving his new licence to ensure that his suspension had indeed been removed and he submitted that he checked on several other occasions as well.

28It is apparent an administrative error was made in the MTO system. I accept the respondent’s submission and evidence that the appellant’s original licence was still under suspension. However, I am not convinced that the appellant could have reasonably known that there was a duplicative record at the MTO nor that he should be penalized for the mistake.

29Further, the evidence tabled by both parties establishes that the appellant was driving with a driver’s licence, the number of which was not under suspension at the time it was impounded. Even after the impoundment and up to October 5th, the appellant appeared licenced on the MTO website. The respondent did not refute this fact.

30I am also not convinced that the error is as a result of the appellant’s name appearing as “Renan L. Macedo” in the conviction report which was sent to MTO, because both MTO driver’s records use the name “Renan Lintz Macedo.” Even if it was the case that the court documents caused confusion at the MTO, I do not accept that it was incumbent on the appellant to pursue the matter in order for the MTO to apply the suspension on his licence. The MTO did in fact use the full name of the applicant in both sets of licence registrations. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the administrative error would have been the result of the abbreviated name used in the court documents nor that this was the appellant’s fault.

31I find an administrative discrepancy existed outside the control of the appellant which cannot be ignored by the Tribunal. I find that the appellant has exercised due diligence under the circumstances because he relied on the licence that the MTO issued him and on numerous interactions he had with the MTO without an indication of an ongoing suspension.

32For the above reasons, I have found that the appellant has proven the grounds set out in 50.2(3)(c) of the Act.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

33The appellant’s grounds for appeal succeed. Accordingly, pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I order the Registrar to release of the appellant’s vehicle.