Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17320/MVIA

In the matter of an appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) from an impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while in contravention of a condition under s. 55.1(1)2 of the Act

Between:

Brianna Erikka Paige Armstrong

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Jan Dymond

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Brianna Erikka Paige Armstrong, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: by teleconference July 21, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Brianna Erikka Paige Armstrong, (the “appellant”), appeals the impoundment of their 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 Friday, July 4, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, Jim Zoltan Ashton Rowland-Vas (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 that they 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 and that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

3The issues in dispute are:

i. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act, 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; and

ii. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act, whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

RESULT

4For the reasons set out below the Registrar is ordered to release the impounded vehicle.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Should two declarations filed late by the appellant be excluded?

5The respondent’s request to exclude two late-filed declarations is denied.

6Rule 9.5.2 requires parties to exchange every document on which they intend to rely 10 calendar days in advance of the hearing. Documents for this hearing were to be exchanged no later than by Friday, July 11, 2025. The appellant submitted two declarations – one from the driver and one from the driver’s mother, at 10:30 p.m. on Sunday, July 20, 2025. I find, therefore, that they were late-filed. Under Rule 9.3, a party may not rely on the document or thing that is late-filed without the permission of the Tribunal.

7The respondent sought to exclude the two declarations from being accepted into evidence on the basis of relevance and because they had not had sufficient time to verify them.

8The appellant had submitted that the declarations as support that the driver did not disclose the suspension of his licence to the appellant or his mother.

9Rule 9.3 authorizes the Tribunal to consider any relevant factor in determining whether to permit a late-filed document to be accepted. In making my finding, I am mindful of the need to balance the application of the Rules with the objective of providing a fair hearing forum for self-represented parties.

10In this matter, I have considered prejudice to both parties and find that the appellant may be prejudiced by excluding the documents while there is little or no prejudice to the respondent in allowing them. In terms of relevance, it will be up to the appellant to establish relevance in the hearing. The respondent will have an opportunity to challenge relevance and to address the veracity of the declarations during cross-examination and to speak to the weight I should attach to the declarations in their closing statements.

11I order that that the declarations of the driver and the driver’s mother be admitted into evidence.

ANALYSIS

The appellant has established that they 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

12I am satisfied that 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.

13In considering what actions might amount to due diligence, the Supreme Court of Canada, in 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.

14Although due diligence does not require perfection, it does require that the appellant must establish that they took reasonable actions to determine that the driver was properly licensed rather than simply assuming that to be true. In general, the driver’s own representation that they are properly licensed is not sufficient to establish that due diligence was taken.

15The appellant testifies that she has known the driver for approximately four years and in that time has known him to drive various vehicles belonging to his parents, a friend, and the parents of a friend on multiple occasions. She has also seen him produce a driver’s licence as proof of age on multiple occasions over the four years. She submits that at no time did he inform her or any of the individuals whose vehicles he drove that his driver’s licence had been suspended. A declaration submitted by the appellant’s mother confirms that she was unaware that her son’s driver’s licence was suspended.

16On the day of the impoundment, she testifies that the driver had asked to travel with her from the GTA back to Sault Ste. Marie and had encouraged her to let him drive too so that the appellant would not become overtired. A declaration submitted by the driver confirms that he did not tell the appellant that his driver’s licence was suspended.

17The appellant acknowledges that she did not attempt to verify the driver’s licence of the driver using the MTO website or Service Ontario, nor ask him directly if he had a valid driver’s licence. She submits that the fact that he made frequent use of others’ vehicles, including those of his parents, and had shown his drivers’ licence as proof of age should be sufficient demonstration that she took the care and actions a reasonable person would have taken in the same or similar circumstances.

18The respondent submits that the appellant did not look at the driver’s licence of the driver to ensure that it was valid and, because she had seen him drive other vehicles, assumed that he had a valid driver’s licence without taking any additional actions to ensure that the driver was licenced.

19I have considered the testimony of both parties and find that the appellant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that she took all reasonable care and the actions a reasonable person would have taken in the same or similar circumstances. I find it reasonable for the appellant to believe that the driver held a valid driver’s licence because she had witnessed him driving various vehicles, including those of his parents, and because she had seen him present a driver’s licence as proof-of-age without challenge. That the driver’s own mother was unaware of his suspension and allowed him to drive the family vehicles further supports the appellant’s contention that none of the individuals whose vehicles the driver used, including the appellant, had cause to take actions to confirm that the driver held a valid licence and further supports the appellant’s contention that the care and actions the appellant took were the actions a reasonable person would have taken in the circumstances.

20I find that the appellant has established that they 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.

21Since the appellant has established that she satisfies the grounds of appeal under s. 50.2(3) of the Act, I need not consider whether the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

Conclusion

22I find that:

i. the appellant has established that they 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.

ORDER

23The Tribunal Orders that the Registrar shall release the impounded vehicle.

Released: July 24, 2025

__________________________

Jan Dymond

Vice-Chair