Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17921/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

Between:

Jackie Recoskie

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Rupinder Hans

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Jackie Recoskie, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: 11/21/2025

OVERVIEW

1Jackie Recoskie, (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 Wednesday, October 15, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, her son Nathan Recoskie (the “driver”) was driving the vehicle while his driver's licence was subject to a condition that prohibits them from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device as described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1), and while his licence was suspended. 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 issue(s) in dispute is/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 the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

RESULT

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

ANALYSIS

The vehicle was stolen

5I am satisfied that the motor vehicle that was impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded.

6In 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”.

7In 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.

8The appellant testified that she has known for some time that her son, the driver, had a suspended driver’s licence and did not have driving privileges. She testified that she has told him many times that he is not allowed to drive her vehicle, and she has never let him drive her vehicle since the suspension of his driving privileges, and he has never asked to use the vehicle. She testified that he has a bad driving record. The last time she told him that he could not drive her vehicle was several years ago. She testified that she was clear, and he is well aware that he is not permitted to drive her vehicle, and she does not feel the need to keep repeating herself.

9The appellant testified that she has lent the vehicle to the driver’s domestic partner, her daughter-in-law, many times over the years and especially when her daughter-in-law’s vehicle is broken. The appellant has lent the vehicle to her daughter-in-law for a day and sometimes for the entire weekend if she does not need it. She testified her daughter-on-law does not let the driver drive the vehicle given his suspension status.

10The day prior to the impoundment, the appellant testified that she lent the vehicle to her daughter-in-law as her vehicle was broken. She testified that the vehicle was not lent to the driver given his suspended status, but specifically to her daughter-in-law. She testified the driver and her daughter-in-law reside about one hour away from her residence with her daughter-in-law’s grandmother. However, on this particular occasion, her understanding was that her daughter-in-law was going to drop the driver to the home of her own parents as he was working on a job alongside her father the next morning. Her daughter-in-law was then going to drive to her grandmother’s residence to spend the night. The appellant understood the vehicle would remain with her daughter-in-law at her grandmother’s residence.

11Sometime during the night, the driver and her daughter-in-law got into an argument, and he took the appellant’s vehicle, and drove it resulting in the vehicle being detained for impoundment. She testified that he took her vehicle without her permission and knowledge. She had understood that he was not even supposed to be staying at the same location as her daughter-in-law and the vehicle. She testified he has never taken her vehicle before this time or threatened to take it. She was surprised that he drove her vehicle.

12The appellant did not report the vehicle as stolen as she did not wish to cause additional problems in her household especially as the three children of the driver and her daughter-in-law reside with her and are being raised by her. The appellant did not want them upset and she testified that charging him would result in more tension in her household.

13I find that the appellant did not give her permission to the driver to take and drive her vehicle. I accept her testimony that she has told the driver many times over the years that he is not permitted to drive her vehicle given the suspension of his driving privileges. While I note that the last time she told him not to drive her vehicle was several years ago, I accept her testimony that it was now understood, and she did not feel the need to repeat it every time her daughter-in-law borrowed and drove the vehicle. I accept her testimony that the driver did not have her permission to drive her vehicle and had never driven her vehicle on any prior occasion. I find her testimony credible when she testified that she had no idea that he would take her vehicle especially as she had made clear that he was not permitted to drive it.

14I am mindful that the appellant did not have the driver charged with theft of her vehicle. However, I accept her testimony that this would result in familial tensions given that she is raising the driver’s three children who reside in her household. Her lack of reporting does not, in my opinion, lead to the conclusion that she gave consent or permission to the driver. To the contrary, the testimony of the appellant was clear that the driver did not have her permission to drive her vehicle.

15In addition, I find the driver intended to deprive the appellant of the use of her vehicle when he took it without her knowledge or permission. I find his actions demonstrate that he intended to deprive the appellant of the use of her vehicle whether temporarily or permanently.

16Given all of the above, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the driver took the appellant’s vehicle without her consent or permission with the intent of depriving the appellant of it. In the context of this case, this taking amounts to the driver having stolen the vehicle.

17I 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.

18As I have found that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded, I need not consider the remaining ground of exceptional hardship.

Conclusion

19I 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

20The Tribunal orders that the Registrar shall release the impounded vehicle.