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:
Maygan Marin
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Jan Dymond, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Maygan Marin, Appellant
For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent
Observer (Tribunal): Caley Howard, Adjudicator
Heard by teleconference: April 7, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Maygan Marin (the “appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of a 2006 Acura, under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). At the time of the incident that led to the impoundment of the motor vehicle, Brandon Tonna (“the driver”) was driving the vehicle while his licence was under suspension resulting from a prescribed criminal conviction. There is some uncertainty as to the impoundment date. The Notice to Registrar (“NTR”) lists the incident date as March 12, 2025; however, the appellant testifies that the impoundment did not take place at the time of the incident and instead occurred the following day on March 13, 2025. For the purposes of the appeal, I prefer to rely on the NTR and shall consider it to be March 12, 2025.
2The appellant appeals on the grounds that the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained for impoundment; that the appellant exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence was not under suspension; and that the impoundment of the vehicle will result in exceptional hardship.
3The Registrar submitted documents confirming that the driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was under suspension resulting from a prescribed criminal conviction. Accordingly, I find that the vehicle was lawfully impounded pursuant to s. 55.1(1) of the Act.
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
4The issues to be determined are:
i. whether the motor vehicle that was impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(a) of the Act;
ii. 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 pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act;
iii. whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
RESULT
5I find that the appellant exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence of the driver of the vehicle was not under suspension at the time it was detained in order to be impounded. As a result, pursuant to s. 50.2(5), I order the respondent to release the vehicle. Having found that the appellant has met her onus under s. 50.2(3)(c) of he Act, I need not to consider her grounds of appeal under ss. 50.2(3)(a) or 50.2.(3)(d).
ANALYSIS
6The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded under s. 55.1 of the Act may, pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle.
The owner has established that she exercised due diligence.
7I find that the appellant has demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine whether 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 under s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act.
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. For example, in Horst v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 106454 (ON LAT), the Tribunal found that due diligence applies to the actions the owner ought to take to meet the legal responsibility of ensuring their vehicle is operated by a licensed driver.
9In considering the extent of those actions, the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Sault Ste. Marie 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R 1299, describes due diligence as taking all reasonable care and the actions a reasonable person would have taken in the same or similar circumstances.
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.
12The Tribunal has considered various steps an owner can take to determine whether they have exercised due diligence. The steps necessary to establish due diligence may be different depending on the circumstances of each case. The Tribunal has also consistently held that the owner’s obligation is to exercise due diligence at or near the time the vehicle is detained. This is consistent with the wording of the Act.
13The appellant testifies that the vehicle was impounded by the police while she was driving it one day after she had loaned it to the driver so that he could visit a relative. She testifies that she was told by the police that they had video of the driver driving her vehicle while his licence was under suspension.
14She testifies that she had been in a domestic relationship with the driver for approximately one and a half years at the time of the incident that led to the impoundment and that the relationship was ending. She testifies that she had asked the driver in the past whether he had a driver’s licence and had asked to see it. She testifies that the driver told he that he had a driver’s license but was unable to produce a physical copy of the licence. The appellant further testifies that the driver had been abusive to her in the past and that she was afraid to press him or to deny him the use of her vehicle.
15She further testifies that two incidents gave her reason to believe that the driver held a valid driver’s licence. The first incident was a result of circumstances that brought the police to the appellant’s home. The appellant explains that an officer asked the driver to use the appellant’s car to take the appellant’s children to school while the appellant made a statement to the police. The appellant testifies that the driver subsequently used the officer’s request as confirmation that he must have a valid licence and to pressure her into lending him the vehicle.
16She also testifies that the driver recently rented a U-Haul vehicle so that the appellant and driver could move her belongings to a storage unit and that the driver gave the U-Haul employee the number of his driver’s licence. She testifies that the U-Haul employee accepted the driver’s licence number of the driver before approving the rental. She also testifies that the driver had used his driver’s licence number as identification with their utilities provider. She testifies that it is reasonable, therefore, for her to have concluded that the driver’s licence of the driver was valid.
17The Registrar submits that the appellant took no actions to ensure that the driver had a valid driver’s licence and that since the appellant knew the driver’s licence number of the driver, she should have taken steps to verify whether it was valid, such as checking on the Ministry of Transport website or with Service Ontario. The appellant testifies that she was unaware of these resources and that she had a reasonable belief that the driver’s licence of the driver was valid, given that the driver’s licence had been accepted as identification by her utility provider and U-Haul and that a police officer had directed him to drive her children.
18I find the appellant’s testimony to be persuasive and I am satisfied that the appellant took the steps a reasonable person would have taken in the same or similar circumstances to ensure that the driver’s licence of the driver was not under suspension.
19For the reasons above, I find that the appellant has met her onus to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle was not then under suspension under s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act.
Conclusion
20I find that the appellant has established that she 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 under s.50.2(3)(c) of the Act.
ORDER
21Pursuant to s.50.2(5) of the Act, I direct the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.
Jan Dymond
Vice-Chai
Released: April 14, 2025