Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18035/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:

Delore Gallant

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dagmara Szczudlo

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Delore Gallant, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Agent for the Respondent

HEARD:

December 8, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Delore Gallant, (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 Monday, November 17, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, Thunder Albert Frederick Jack (the “driver”) was driving with a suspended licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

2The appellant appeals on the grounds that that they 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 hardship.

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 that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

RESULT

4For the reasons set out below the 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 appellant has established that they 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.

6I am 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.

7In 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.

8Although due diligence does not require perfection, it does require that the appellant must establish that they 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.

9The appellant testified that the driver of the impounded vehicle was a friend of a friend, and he met him through a work colleague Greg. On the night in question, they were spending time together and Mr. Jack asked to borrow his car to purchase formula for his infant at a nearby store. The appellant testified that he asked to see the driver’s licence and physically held it in his hand, confirming that the photo on the licence matched Mr. Jack’s appearance and the licence was not expired. He thought about the request for a while and agreed, noting that he was tired, assumed his acquaintance would be back soon, and went to sleep for an early wake-up to go to work the next morning.

10Continuing his testimony, the appellant stated that he did not ask Mr. Jack whether he had any tickets or suspensions and was unable to go to Service Ontario to obtain a Driver’s Abstract because it was after hours, and the office was closed. The appellant stated that he was required to obtain a Driver’s Abstract for his work and went to obtain the document in person. He was not aware that a web-based Ministry of Transportation service is available to assist in these circumstances.

11Finally, the appellant testified that the information submitted by the respondent shows him that Mr. Jack was not being truthful regarding the status of his licence when he handed over the photo card, and he regrets lending him his car and the difficulties that arose as a result of that decision. When he contacted the driver regarding the impound fees, he was told “that it’s my vehicle and it’s my issue” and the driver ended the call. He has not been able to reach Mr. Jack since.

12The respondent presented evidence which establishes that Mr. Jack’s driver’s licence was suspended since June 4, 2025 and on the day of the impoundment, he was pulled over for speeding. Since he was driving while his licence was suspended, the car was detained for impoundment.

13The respondent submits that the appellant did not call Service Ontario, use the Ministry of Transportation website, nor ask the driver whether he had any tickets or suspensions.

14I find the evidence presented by the respondent, namely the Extended Driver Record Search and the Driver Status by Date for Mr. Jack to be persuasive, and do not find it reasonable to believe that the driver was not aware that his licence was suspended, particularly since the suspension occurred because of a guilty plea to a criminal offence several months before the incident. I do accept that the driver would not be forthcoming with this information to his new acquaintance and would attempt to gain access to a car by presenting a licence card that was likely issued prior to the suspension and still appeared to be valid.

15I considered the testimony of both parties and find that the appellant established, on a balance of probabilities, that he took reasonable actions to determine that the driver was properly licensed rather than simply assuming that to be true. He asked to see the driver’s licence and verified that the photo matched and the licence was not expired. I accept that this effort was imperfect and there are additional tools available to confirm the status of a licence, however, the appellant was not aware of these options. Since the driver’s licence card was not required to be surrendered upon a licence suspension, I find these efforts were reasonable in the circumstances.

16I find that the appellant established that he 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 suspended.

17Since the appellant established that he satisfies this ground of appeal, I need not determine whether another ground for appeal has been established.

Conclusion

18I find that:

i. the appellant established that he 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.

ORDER

19The Tribunal orders that the Registrar shall release the impounded vehicle.