Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17882/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:
Enterprise Rent A Car Company Canada
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Rupinder Hans
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Mark Gutberg, Representative
For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Representative
HEARD by Teleconference: November 5, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Enterprise Rent A Car Company Canada, (the "appellant"), appeals the impoundment of its 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 Monday, October 13, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, Ghassan Abdul Massih (the "driver") was driving the vehicle with a suspended licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 180 days.
2The appellant appeals on the grounds that that it 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 that the impoundment will cause exceptional harship.
ISSUES
3The issues in dispute are:
i. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act, whether the appellant 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
ii. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act, whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
RESULT
4For the reasons set out below the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.
ANALYSIS
The appellant has not established that it 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
5I am not satisfied that the appellant 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.
6In considering what actions might amount to due diligence, the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Sault Ste. Marie 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R 1299 ("R. v. Sault Ste. Marie"), describes due diligence as taking all reasonable care and the actions a reasonable person would have taken in the same or similar circumstances.
7Although due diligence does not require perfection, it does require that the appellant establish that it took reasonable actions to determine that the driver was properly licensed rather than simply assuming that to be true. In general, the driver's own representation that they are properly licensed is not sufficient to establish that due diligence was taken.
8Mr. Mark Gutberg, a risk manager for the appellant, testified that the driver rented the vehicle in Quebec and signed a contract confirming he was legal to drive. The vehicle was first rented to the driver on June 2, 2025, and it became a month to month rental. He testified that the driver presented a valid Quebec driver's licence with a listed Quebec address, and there was no reason to not rent the vehicle to the driver as he provided a valid driver's licence, albeit a Quebec licence. However, Mr. Gutberg also testified that he was not present when the driver rented the vehicle at the rental location.
9Mr. Gutberg did offer testimony on what general steps the appellant could take in order to verify a Quebec licence such as using a black light to make sure the licence is valid, and possibly calling the Quebec regulatory body to verify the validity of the licence. He testified the appellant does not undertake any national driver's licence check.
10In my view, based on the evidence presented, Mr. Gutberg was not present at the time the driver rented the vehicle from the rental location, and thus, he has no personal knowledge of what actions, if any, were taken that could constitute reasonable steps to verify the ability of the driver to drive or whether the Ontario licence was suspended at the relevant time. While he offered general testimony on what steps could be taken, he did not have personal knowledge of what steps were actually undertaken at the time. Thus, I give little weight to his testimony given that he was not present when the vehicle was rented to the driver.
11In addition, the appellant's reliance upon the contract wherein the appellant confirmed that he was legal to drive is misplaced. I note that a driver's own representation that they are properly licensed is not sufficient to establish that due diligence was taken. The appellant needs to demonstrate that it took reasonable actions to determine that the driver was properly licensed rather than simply assuming that to be true.
12I find that the appellant has not established that it 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.
The impoundment will not cause exceptional hardship
13I am not satisfied that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship as that term is defined under O. Reg. 631/98 under the Act (the "Regulation").
14The Regulation sets out the criteria that the Tribunal is required to consider when determining whether the appellant has established that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship under the Act. According to the Regulation, the Tribunal must first determine whether no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available. Subsection 10(4) states that in order to show that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle:
[T]he owner must demonstrate that every reasonable option has been considered and inquired into that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss to the person, including using another vehicle and making arrangements to do without any motor vehicle during the impound period.
15If the owner fails to prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, then the appeal on the basis of exceptional hardship will fail and the Tribunal need not consider the remaining factors set out in the Regulation related to exceptional hardship.
16If the owner establishes that there is no alternative available, the Tribunal must then consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle, a threat to public health and safety, or a threat to the environment or property of a community in whose service the vehicle is ordinarily used.
17The Tribunal is generally precluded by s. 10(2) from considering financial or economic loss, loss of employment or an employment opportunity, or loss of education or training or an opportunity for education or training. However, s. 10(3) provides that the Tribunal can consider these things if the owner demonstrates the following:
(a) no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available;
(b) the loss will be immediate, significant and lasting;
(c) the impact of the loss will be upon a person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle; and
(d) the impact of the loss,
(i) will be upon a person other than the person whose driving while his or her driver's licence was under suspension resulted in the impoundment of the motor vehicle, and
(ii) will not be a result of a loss by the suspended driver of the type set out in clause (2) (b), (c) or (d).
18The Tribunal can never consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to a person.
Alternative to the impounded vehicle
19I am not satisfied that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.
20Mr. Gutberg testified that, given the impoundment, the appellant is not generating any income from renting the impounded vehicle, and is losing money. Additional losses include the payment of the impoundment fees and the cost of towing the vehicle from the impoundment lot. During cross-examination, he acknowledged that the appellant has the ability to start a court action against the driver to pursue its costs and losses, and this is something it has done in the past.
21Notably, Mr. Gutberg testified that there are approximately 45 other vehicles available at the rental location from where the appellant rented the vehicle, and the appellant has access to about 7,000 vehicles across Quebec.
22In my view, the appellant has about 45 other vehicles at the rental location, and an additional 7,000 vehicles, and while these numbers fluctuate, there is clear evidence before the Tribunal establishing that there are alternatives available to the appellant.
23I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.
24Since the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, exceptional hardship has not been established in accordance with the Act and the Regulation, and I need not consider the remaining factors for determining exceptional hardship.
Conclusion
25I find that:
i. the appellant has not established that it 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;
ii. the appellant has not established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
ORDER
26The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.
Released: November 19, 2025
Rupinder Hans
Adjudicator