Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17080/CVIS

In the matter of an appeal from the impoundment of a commercial vehicle (trailer) under s. 50.3 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, Ch. H.8 (the “Act”).

Between:

Rudra Trucklines Ltd.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Bruce Stanton

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Ankur Sharma, sole director/officer

For the Respondent: Patrick Moore, Counsel

Heard by videoconference: May 26, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Rudra Trucklines Ltd., the appellant, appeals from the impoundment of its commercial trailer on April 22, 2025 by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, the respondent, under s. 50.3 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, Ch. H.8 (the “Act”).

ISSUES

2The issue to be determined is:

i. Whether there were no critical defects in the trailer at the time of the inspection under s. 82.1 of the Act.

RESULT

3I find there were critical defects in the trailer at the time of the inspection under s. 82.1 of the Act. The impoundment is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

Critical defect at time of inspection

4I find that the appellant’s trailer had a critical defect when it was inspected by Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) enforcement officers on April 22, 2025.

5Under s. 50.3 of the Act, the owner of a commercial motor vehicle or trailer that is impounded under s. 82.1, may appeal the impoundment on two grounds; under s. 50.3(3)(a), that the vehicle or trailer was stolen, or under s. 50.3(3)(b), that the vehicle or trailer had no critical defects at the time of the inspection that was conducted pursuant to s. 82.1 of the Act.

6For clarity, s. 82.1 of the Act sets out the authority of the MTO to inspect, detain, and impound commercial vehicles or trailers.

7O. Reg. 512/97 (the “Regulation”) sets out what constitutes a “critical defect” for the purposes of s. 82.1 of the Act.

Circumstances leading to the impoundment

8The appellant was driving his commercial truck, a 2019 Volvo, with attached commercial trailer, on April 9, 2025, when he was subject to a routine inspection at an MTO roadside inspection station on Hwy 401, west of Bennett Road near Bowmanville. On that occasion, the appellant’s trailer was inspected by MTO enforcement officer, Steve Morris. The Commercial Vehicle Inspection Report, authored by Officer Morris at the conclusion of the inspection that day, reported that the pushrods in both brake chambers at axle 4 measured beyond the adjustment limit, and the pushrod in the right-side brake chamber at axle 5, was fully extended and therefore defective.

9Officer Morris testified that, at the conclusion of the April 9, 2025 inspection, the appellant was advised that two provincial offences were being recorded against him, one for the defective brake on the trailer, and the second for a compliance issue with the appellant’s licence (that is not relevant to the grounds for the impoundment).

10On April 22, 2025, officer Morris was patrolling the area near the Bowmanville inspection station when he recognized the appellant’s truck and trailer. He pulled the appellant over and after a discussion, directed the appellant to take his truck and trailer to the Bowmanville inspection station on the 401.

11Officer Morris conducted an inspection of the trailer, determined that it had a critical defect, and ordered the trailer impounded pursuant to the Regulation, because more than 50% of the brakes on the trailer were defective.

The appellant’s evidence and submissions

12The appellant testified that after the April 9, 2025 inspection, the appellant, on the recommendation of Officer Morris, arranged to have the brakes on the trailer repaired. He took the trailer to Khan Truck & Trailer Repair (“Khan”) in Brampton to have the trailer brakes serviced.

13The appellant testified that he explained to the mechanic at Khan that one brake was defective, and the others were out of adjustment.

14The total cost of the repairs at Khan was $2,118.75 for cam parts, bushing parts, wheel seal and air line fitting parts, and labour.

15The appellant testified that when the trailer was returned from Khan April 18, 2025, he expected that the defects that were flagged by the MTO on April 9, 2025, and that he informed Khan of prior to the repair, had been addressed.

16The appellant testified that, while driving the truck and trailer after repairs were completed, he noticed no performance issues with the trailer brakes. He said the brakes were working fine.

17The appellant testified that, during the inspection, Officer Morris did not properly confirm that there was at least 90 pounds per square inch (“psi”) pressure in the braking system. He referred me to a photograph taken by Officer Morris of the dashboard of the truck that was at an angle, such that the needle of the pressure gauge appeared to give a reading higher than the pressure really was. In response to this, Officer Morris testified that despite the photograph being taken at an angle, he sat in the driver’s seat to view the pressure gauge directly and testified that it was between the required 90 and 100 psi.

18The appellant testified that, using FaceTime, he videoed the brake chambers on the trailer with the mechanic at Khan, after it was retrieved from the impoundment yard. During that conversation with the mechanic, the appellant testified that the mechanic said the brakes looked fine.

19The appellant submits that there was no critical defect in the trailer brakes and therefore, the Tribunal should order its release on the ground set out in s. 50.3(3)(b) of the Act – no critical defects.

The respondent’s evidence and submissions

20Officer Morris testified that, for the type 30 brake chambers on this trailer, the travel of the pushrods when the brakes are fully deployed, should be no more than 2 inches.

21Officer Morris testified that the pushrod travel of the first axle, left side, measured 2 ¼ inches (”) and the right side measured 2 1/8”. On the second axle, the left side measured 2 5/8” and the right side also measured 2 5/8”.

22Officer Morris referred me to Schedule 1 of the Regulation which stipulates that, for the type 30 clamp type brake chamber that is installed on this trailer, the pushrod travel limit is 2”.

23Officer Morris testified that he decided to impound the trailer because only one of the 4 pushrod travel measures on this trailer met the requirement of the Regulation, that being the right side, axle 1, measured at 2 1/8”. The other three measured ¼” or more beyond the limit and constitute a critical defect because more than 50% of the pushrods exceeded the limit.

24MTO enforcement officer, Jon Milton, testified that, in cases where an officer intends to impound a commercial vehicle, the practice is to have a second officer confirm that a critical defect exists. Officer Milton testified that Officer Morris contacted him to conduct a confirmation inspection of his findings on the appellant’s trailer. Officer Milton conducted the confirmation inspection and determined that the pushrod travel on 3 of the 4 brake chambers exceeded the limits set out in the Regulation.

25The respondent submits that the provisions of s. 50.3 of the Act are clear and unambiguous. If a critical defect is recorded at the time of an inspection conducted under s. 82.1, the vehicle must be impounded, and only if an appellant can prove that no critical defect existed at the time of that inspection, could the Tribunal order the MTO to release the vehicle. The respondent submits that the appellant has not met his onus. The respondent submits that the appellant’s arguments about undertaking repairs to the trailer should have no weight assigned them because it is only the trailer’s mechanical fitness on the day it was inspected that is relevant to the appeal. The respondent submitted that there is no ground of due diligence available to appellants under s. 50.3. The respondent seeks confirmation of the impoundment.

Finding

26I find the impoundment should be confirmed.

27Section 7(2)4 of the Regulation states that a critical defect exists if, on 50% or more of the wheel brakes on a vehicle, the pushrod travel is ¼” or more beyond the measurement specified for the brake type in the Regulation.

28I give weight to Officer Morris’ and Officer Milton’s evidence that the pushrods in the brake chambers of the trailer exceeded the limits imposed by the Regulation. I am persuaded by their detailed evidence that they undertook the inspection in accordance with Regulation and MTO procedures, including observing and checking that the pressure was between 90 and 100 psi for the brake test.

29I give little weight to the appellant’s testimony that angle of the photograph taken of the pressure gauge in the dashboard of the truck misrepresented the actual pressure in the braking system at the time of the test because the inspectors confirmed the pressure was between the required 90 and 100 psi by observing the gauge while seated in the cab, and by verifying the pressure using independent, certified gauges. The pressure readings the officers reported on the independent gauges were not disputed by the appellant.

30While it is commendable that the appellant arranged for repairs to the trailer brakes following the April 9, 2025 inspection, this evidence is of little assistance because four days later, the MTO inspection revealed that the pushrods of three brake chambers exceeded the limit. While the appellant may have made repairs and improved the brakes, there was still a critical defect at the time of the inspection.

31The appellant has not provided any evidence to refute the two MTO officer’s conclusions beyond his anecdotal observations that the brakes seemed to be functioning satisfactorily. I give little weight to the appellant’s evidence of the FaceTime call with the mechanic because the call appears to have taken place after the impoundment and the status of the brakes at that time are immaterial to the issue in dispute. The issue to be determined is whether there was a critical defect at the time it was inspected. The respondent is correct in its submissions that it is the condition of the vehicle at the time of the inspection under s. 82.1 that is relevant. In this case, I find on a balance of probabilities that the trailer had a critical defect at the time of the inspection.

32I find the appellant did not meet his onus in demonstrating that there was no critical defect in the trailer at the time it was inspected.

Conclusion

33For the reasons discussed above; I find on a balance of probabilities that there was a critical defect in the trailer at the time it was inspected pursuant to s. 82.1 of the Act. The impoundment is therefore confirmed.

ORDER

34Pursuant to s. 50.3(5) of the Act, the impoundment is confirmed.