Linda Lennon v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 25864

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:

Linda Lennon

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Jan Dymond, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: James Wilson, Paralegal

For the Respondent: Sadia Ashraf, Agent

Heard by teleconference: March 25, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Linda Lennon (the “appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of a 2013 GMC Sierra, licence plate 9804ZK, owned by John M. Lennon (the “owner”) under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The vehicle was impounded on March 5, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, Nekime Lidstone was driving the vehicle while his licence was under suspension resulting from a prescribed criminal conviction.

2The appellant appeals on the grounds that impoundment of the vehicle will result in exceptional hardship.

MOTION TO DISMISS

3At the hearing, the respondent moved for dismissal of the appeal because the appeal was not submitted or signed by the registered owner of the vehicle. They submitted that s.50.2 (1) of the Act provides that only the owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under section 55.1 of the Act may appeal the impoundment to the Tribunal. “Owner” is defined under 50.2 (11) of the Act as follows:

“owner” means each person whose name appears on the certificate of registration for the vehicle but in subsection (4) “owner” means the person whose name appears on the plate portion of a permit in cases where the certificate of registration consists of a vehicle portion and a plate portion and different persons are named on each portion. (“propriétaire”) 1997, c. 12, s. 5; 2000, c. 26, Sched. O, s. 3 (2).

4The respondent submitted evidence confirming John M. Lennon as the sole registered owner of the vehicle that was impounded. They submitted that Linda Lennon is not the owner of the vehicle and therefore is not entitled to file an appeal. They submitted that the Tribunal does not have the authority under 50.2 (1) of the Act to hear the appeal because the appeal was submitted by someone other than the owner.

5The appellant’s representative submitted that Linda Lennon is the spouse of the owner and is entitled to act on his behalf under a power of attorney (“POA”). The representative requested a short break in the proceeding in order to obtain and submit a copy of the POA. The respondent did not object and a short break was granted in order for the appellant’s representative to attempt to secure a copy of the POA.

6After the break, the representative for the appellant reported that he was unable to secure an executed copy of the POA. He stated that did not have submissions in response to the respondent’s motion.

7I find that the Registrar has established that the person who filed the appeal is not the owner of the vehicle as defined under 50.2 (11) of the Act and, therefore, does not have a right to appeal the impoundment of the motor vehicle under 50.2 (1) of the Act.

Conclusion

8I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal.

ORDER

9The appeal is dismissed.

Jan Dymond

Vice-Chair