Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17101/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 under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while suspended.

Between:

Marksmen Drywall Inc.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicators:

Dagmar Boettcher, Member Laura Hodgson, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Marksmen Drywall Inc. (Mark McDonald, Owner), Self-Represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: June 18, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Marksmen Drywall Inc. (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of its 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 May 10, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, one of the appellant’s employees (the “Driver”), was driving the vehicle with a suspended licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

2The appellant appeals on the grounds that it exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the licence of the driver of the motor vehicle was not under suspension at the time of impoundment.

ISSUES

3The issue in dispute is whether the appellant exercised due diligence in accordance with section 50.2(3)(c) of the Act.

RESULT

4For the reasons set out below, the appeal is dismissed, and the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

The appellant did not exercise due diligence

5The appellant did not exercise due diligence in seeking to determine if the driver’s licence was not under suspension at the time of the impoundment. The appeal, pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act, must be dismissed.

6This ground of appeal requires the vehicle owner to show that it took reasonable steps to determine that the driver’s licence was not suspended. Due diligence does not require perfection. In this context, due diligence requires more than making assumptions of the facts. It requires steps to be taken by the owner to confirm that the company procedures established are being adhered to and regularly reviewed. Specific steps that amount to due diligence depend on the circumstances of each case.

7Mark McDonald, an owner/director of the appellant, testified that when employees are hired, the office manager is responsible for obtaining a copy of the driver’s licence, if it is anticipated that the employee will be operating a company vehicle. The office manager then sends the copy to the insurer who performs the driver record search and confirms that the employee has a clean driving record and a valid licence.

8Mr. McDonald advised that the Driver had been an employee on and off for several years and, as he was a drywaller, he was not required to drive. On May 10, 2025, as another employee was ill, the Driver was required to use a company vehicle, which the office manager authorized.

9Mr. McDonald assumed the office manager had received confirmation from the insurer that the Driver had a valid licence. The office manager did not ask to see the Driver’s licence to determine its validity. The appellant had no record of the status of the Driver’s licence being verified at any time during his employment or that he was requested to provide a copy of his licence. When asked how often the company submits employee driver’s licences for verification by the insurer, Mr. McDonald candidly responded “not often enough”.

10Mr. McDonald acknowledged that there had been a lapse in procedure with respect to the Driver. He noted that the office manager had been recently terminated and there would be new procedures and policies to verify employee driver’s licences going forward.

11While the appellant can be commended for implementing a new protocol to restrict the use of its vehicles to employees with valid licences, these procedures were not in place or implemented at the time of the impoundment. The facts in this case do not support due diligence within the meaning of section 50.2(3)(c) of the Act.

12The appellant is required to demonstrate the exercise of due diligence by showing that it took reasonable steps to determine that the driver’s licence was not suspended “at the time it was detained for impoundment”. There is no evidence that that appellant took any reasonable steps to verify the Driver’s licence prior to the impoundment. The appellant has therefore not met its burden.

13The appellant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that it exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence was not under suspension when the vehicle was detained to be impounded. The appeal pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act must fail.

ORDER

14For the reasons set out above, the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle is confirmed.