Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17700/MVIA

In the matter of an appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) from an impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while suspended

Between:

Melanie Mathieu

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dagmara Szczudlo

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Melanie Mathieu, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Agent

Observer:

Paul Faure, Appellant’s Fiancé

Heard By Teleconference October 2, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Melanie Mathieu, (the “appellant”), appeals the impoundment of their motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on Saturday, September 13, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, Isaac Alexander Faure (the “driver”) was driving the vehicle with a suspended licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

2The appellant appeals on the grounds that the motor vehicle that was impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded and that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

3The issues in dispute are:

i. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(a) of the Act, whether the motor vehicle that was impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded; and

ii. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act, whether that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

RESULT

4For the reasons set out below the Registrar is ordered to release the impounded vehicle.

ANALYSIS

5For the Tribunal to order the Registrar to release a vehicle that has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1 the Act, an appellant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they satisfy one or more of the grounds for appeal set out in s. 50.2 of the Act. In all cases, the burden of proof lies with the appellant.

The vehicle was stolen

6I am satisfied that the motor vehicle that was impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded.

7In Marshall v. Ontario (Registrar of Motor Vehicles) [2002] O.J. No. 745 (Div. Ct.) (“Marshall”) the Divisional Court held that a vehicle is “stolen” in this context “when it is taken without the owner’s consent and when the perpetrator intends to deprive the owner of it, whether permanently or temporarily”.

8In other words, in order to establish that the vehicle was stolen for the purposes of s. 50.2(3)(a) of the Act, the appellant must prove that the vehicle was taken without the owner’s consent, and that the driver intended to deprive the owner of the vehicle, either permanently or temporarily.

9The appellant testified that the driver of the impounded vehicle is her fiancé’s son, and the vehicle was taken without her authorization while she and the driver’s father were away for the weekend. She relies on a reservation confirmation from the Moulin Wakefield Mill which shows that her fiancé, Paul Faure made a reservation on August 23, 2025 for a check-in on September 13, 2025 and a check-out on September 14, 2025 as evidence that she and her fiancé were away from home when the driver took the car without her permission. Continuing her testimony, the appellant stated that she resided at the same address as the driver and was surprised to discover that her car was not parked in the driveway and the 21-year-old driver was not home upon her return from the trip on September 14th.

10The appellant testified that she was aware of the driver’s prior conviction for driving while exceeding the 80 mg/100 ml blood alcohol limit in September 2024, and the fact that he did not have a valid driver’s licence as a result. She stated that the driver was prohibited from driving the cars in the household and this was communicated to him on multiple occasions. He was asked to use public transit or Uber after his licence suspension and complied with the request until the date of the current impoundment.

11Finally, the appellant testified that she made attempts to hide her car keys from the driver in the past, however, those attempts subsided because the driver was “doing better”, specifically there were no noticeable signs that he was using alcohol, he was working full time, and he started school in September, 2025. The appellant stated that her fiancé told her that she was overreacting by hiding her car keys and she trusted his judgement.

12The respondent submitted that according to the appellant’s testimony, the last conversation during which the driver was told that he was not permitted to drive family vehicles occurred in October 2024. While the appellant has taken steps to move the key storage location in the past, this was not done on the day the vehicle was taken by the driver. The appellant did not take preventative measures to hide her car keys prior to departing for the weekend trip and the driver knew where they were stored. Finally, the respondent submitted that the appellant did not report the theft of her vehicle to the Police and did not charge the driver with theft after the incident. The respondent argues that the request for impoundment be confirmed by the Tribunal.

13I accept the appellant’s evidence confirming a reservation at the Moulin Wakefield Mill and am persuaded that the appellant was not home when the vehicle was taken by the driver. I am also satisfied that the driver intended to deprive the appellant of the use of her vehicle temporarily because the adults in the household were away for the weekend and this act was likely to be undetected if the driver not been detained by Police.

14I found the testimony of the appellant authentic and candid and believe that steps were taken to communicate to the driver that he was not permitted to drive her vehicle, nor any vehicles while his licence was suspended. It’s obvious that prior conversations were insufficient to dissuade the driver and prevent this specific occurrence, however, on a balance of probabilities, I find that the driver acted without the appellant’s permission and deprived the appellant of the use of her vehicle temporarily.

15I find that the appellant has established that the motor vehicle that was impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded.

16Since I found that the vehicle is to be released on the ground that it was stolen, I do not need to determine whether the remaining ground for appeal (exceptional hardship) has been established.

Conclusion

17I find that:

i. the appellant has established that the motor vehicle that was impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded.

ORDER

18The Tribunal Orders that the Registrar shall release the impounded vehicle.