Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17214/MVIA

Appeal under Section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an impoundment of a commercial motor vehicle pursuant to sections 55.1 and s. 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

Between:

Sarens Canada Inc.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATORS:

Caley Howard

Dagmara Szczudlo

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Ryan Wilkins, Representative

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Agent

HEARD by Teleconference:

June 19, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Sarens Canada Inc., the appellant, appeals the 45-day impoundment of a 2018 Ford F150, commercial vehicle operator’s registration number (“CVOR”) 196991011, licence plate AY77446 under s. 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). At the time it was detained to be impounded on May 30, 2025, the appellant’s vehicle was stopped by the police and an employee of Sarens Canada Inc., Dustin Michael Goodfellow (“driver”) was found to be driving the vehicle without a mandatory ignition interlock resulting from a prior prescribed criminal conviction.

2The appellant filed two notices of appeal with the Tribunal:

i. Commercial motor vehicle impoundment and suspension under s. 82.1 and s. 50.3 of the Act, dated June 9, 2025; and

ii. Impoundment of a vehicle driven by driver with a suspended licence and/or with an ignition interlock condition under s. 55.1 and s. 50.2 of the Act, appeal dated June 11, 2025.

3Although the impounded vehicle is a commercial vehicle, it was not detained as a result of an inspection for critical defects. The second notice of appeal is used as a basis for this decision.

4The appellant appeals on the ground that the vehicle was stolen at the time the vehicle was detained under section 55.1.

ISSUES

5The issue in dispute is:

i. Was the appellant’s vehicle stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded within the meaning of s. 50.2 (3) (a) of the Act?

RESULT

6For the reasons that follow, we find that the appellant has met their onus of proof that the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained for impoundment. The Registrar is ordered to release the vehicle to Sarens Canada Inc.

ANALYSIS

7Section 55.1(1) provides that where an officer is satisfied that a person driving a motor vehicle on a highway while his or her driver’s licence is under suspension, or in contravention of a condition that prohibits him or her from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device, shall detain the vehicle and shall impound it under s. 55.1(3).

8The owner of the vehicle may, pursuant to s. 50.2 appeal the impoundment and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle. The owner may appeal only on the grounds set out in s. 50.2(3). The appellant appeals on ground (a) that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded.

The appellant’s vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(a) of the Act

9We find the appellant’s vehicle was stolen at the time it was impounded. The burden is on the appellant to establish that the vehicle was stolen on a balance of probabilities, and he has done so.

10Ryan Wilkins, Branch Manager, testified as a representative of the appellant.

11The appellant’s representative testified that on the day the vehicle was impounded, the driver took it without authorization from the yard of Sarens Canada Inc. where he was employed as a crane operator. The appellant is a multinational company that provides heavy lifting and engineered transport services and has approximately 50 employees in Ontario. Employees operate a variety of heavy equipment stored on its premises and keys to equipment are stored in a lock box which is accessible to all employees using a shared access code. The driver’s duties did not require him to operate the impounded vehicle which was primarily used to pilot heavy equipment and deliver fuel to job sites.

12The appellant’s representative testified that he was not aware that the vehicle was taken from the yard until Sunday, June 1st when the driver notified him that it had been impounded after work hours on Friday, May 30th. The appellant’s representative testified that the driver took the keys to the vehicle from the lock box without permission and used the car to go to a local restaurant Moose Winooski’s. This action was in violation of the Sarens Canada Employee Handbook which prohibits the use of company property for personal use. The appellant’s representative also testified that employees sign the employee handbook and attest compliance with company policies during onboarding and in annual refresher training using an electronic training program.

13The appellant’s representative also testified that there was one prior instance of an employee taking a vehicle without permission from the yard, though it did not result in an impoundment. Approximately two years ago an employee’s car would not start, and he used a company car to drive home without authorization. The employee was issued a warning letter which was documented in his personnel file and, the appellant’s representative testified, there was no need for further escalation because additional incidents did not occur. In the current circumstances, the driver of the impounded vehicle was terminated following the incident and is no longer an employee of the appellant.

14The appellant’s representative’s testimony is based on his experience as a Branch Manager at Sarens Canada, familiarity with company policies, and direct conversations with the driver of the impounded vehicle. We found his testimony credible, reliable, and candid.

15The respondent submitted that the prior incident shows a pattern of employees using company vehicles without consent and that the appellant has not taken appropriate precautions to eliminate unauthorized use, instead relying on progressive discipline with individual employees. The respondent argues that the request for impoundment be confirmed by the Tribunal.

16The term “stolen” is not defined in the Act. The Criminal Code definition of “theft” provides some guidance as follows:

322 (1) Everyone commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the things or of his property or interest in it;

(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;

(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or

(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.

17The Divisional Court held in Marshall v. Ontario (Registrar of Motor Vehicles), [2002] O.J. No. 745 (Div. Crt), that the Tribunal should not limit the meaning of “stolen” only to an intention to take the vehicle permanently. The Court stated that the word “stolen” could also apply to an intention to take the vehicle temporarily.

18Within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(a) of the Act, “stolen” does not mean the use of an owner’s vehicle contrary to the owner’s instructions: See Auto Zone & Rentals Inc. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2016 ONLAT 10149, para. 16 (Exec. Chair).

19We are satisfied that the driver intended to deprive the appellant of the use of the vehicle temporarily by removing the vehicle from the company yard without authorization. According to the Notice to Registrar, the vehicle was impounded at approximately 21:24 pm on a Friday evening, outside the work hours for both yard and office employees of the appellant, which were provided during the appellant’s representative’s testimony. Furthermore, the vehicle was not being used for work purposes such as piloting heavy equipment or delivering fuel to a job site at the time of the impoundment. Indeed, the driver’s duties did not require him to operate the vehicle at all. We find that the appellant has taken steps to ensure that employees are aware of the policy prohibiting the use of company property for personal use and enforced that policy in the past. On a balance of probabilities, the driver violated company policy on the night of the impoundment and deprived the appellant of the use of the vehicle temporarily.

20Taken in totality, the evidence presented at the hearing satisfies us that the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained to be was impounded.

ORDER

21Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, we order the release of the appellant’s impounded vehicle.