Heather Bowman v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 35901

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16870/MVIA

In the matter of an 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:

Heather Bowman

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Heather Bowman

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Agent

Heard:

April 7, 2025

OVERVIEW

1The appellant, Heather Bowman, appeals the 45-day impoundment of her 2017 Nissan Pathfinder under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

2The appellant loaned the vehicle to a contractor, B.E., with whom she and her family share a cordial relationship. The appellant states that she was unaware that B.E. was not the holder of a valid driver’s licence. In fact, the evidence would show that he has never been issued a driver’s licence. B.E. was subsequently involved in a motor vehicle collision on March 19, 2025, which resulted in police attending the scene and discovering that he was not permitted to drive. The vehicle was impounded for 45 days. The appellant is now seeking to have the vehicle returned before the end of the impoundment period which is set for May 3, 2025.

3The appellant is relying on the ground that she exercised due diligence to ensure that the driver was properly licenced. However, she made it clear at the onset of the hearing that since completing the Notice of Appeal on March 19, 2025, she now has a better understanding of the grounds which are available to her. The appellant was open and candid in stating that she did not believe she would be successful on any grounds given her circumstances. She still wished that the hearing proceed so she could present her position to the Tribunal.

4Subsection 55.1(1) of the Act allows for the impoundment of a vehicle for 45 days where a police officer is satisfied that the driver’s licence of the person who is driving a vehicle at the time of its detention is under suspension for certain Criminal Code offences. In this case, B.E.’s driver’s licence was suspended for life for dangerous driving stemming from a conviction on February 4, 2009.

ISSUE

5The appellant appeals under s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act, submitting that she exercised due diligence in ensuring that the driver’s licence of the driver at the time it was detained to be impounded was not then under suspension.

6The onus of proving this ground of appeal rests with the appellant. To succeed in her appeal, the appellant must establish that she exercised due diligence on a balance of probabilities.

RESULT

7Having considered the parties’ evidence and submissions, I find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine the driver’s licence of B.E. was not under suspension at the time of the impoundment. I therefore dismiss the appeal and confirm the impoundment.

ANALYSIS

Has the appellant demonstrated due diligence?

8The Act does not provide a definition of due diligence. However, previous rulings of the Court and the Tribunal provide guidance as what constitutes due diligence for these purposes.

9In considering the extent of those actions, 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. In Horst v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 106454 (ON LAT), the Tribunal applied this test to the due diligence ground of appeal in impoundment cases like this one.

10The Tribunal, in 10719 v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2017 CanLII 35348 (ON LAT), found that the extent of inquiry and action to determine the validity of a licence may also depend on the nature of the relationship between the owner and the driver, as well as on the circumstances under which the driver is permitted to use the vehicle.

11To prove due diligence, the appellant must establish that she took reasonable care and undertook actions to determine that the driver was properly licensed. Reasonable care does not mean perfection and is considered in the context of the circumstances under which use of the vehicle is being permitted by its owner.

12I find that the appellant has fallen well short of meeting any standard that would persuade the Tribunal that she exercised due diligence in this case. During the hearing, the appellant admitted that she did not ask to see B.E.’s driver’s licence nor did she take any additional steps to verify that he had a driver’s licence. The appellant admits to taking for granted the fact that he did and stated that it did not occur to her to ask. She expressed regret for her actions but was appreciative for the opportunity to learn more about the process. She states that she is now better equipped to prepare herself if she loans her vehicle in the future.

13The respondent submitted that the appellant should have conducted a thorough search as part of her due diligence to determine if B.E. was properly licenced and permitted to drive. Whatever the appellant ought to have done, at no time did she take even the easiest first step of asking the appellant about his driver’s licence.

14I considered the fact that due diligence is demonstrated through taking reasonable care to ensure that the driver has a valid driver’s licence. In this case, I find that no reasonable actions were taken by the appellant to ensure B.E. was properly licenced to drive.

15I find that the actions taken by the appellant to verify the driver’s licence of B.E. fall short of due diligence. She should have taken more care to attempt to determine that he was legally allowed to drive her vehicle.

ORDER

16For the reasons set out above, pursuant to the Tribunal’s authority under s.50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment order.