Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17278/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:

Douglas McInroy

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Michael Beauchesne

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Douglas McInroy, Appellant

Mason Bruner-Moore, Representative (Student-at-Law)

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: By Teleconference Thursday, July 17, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Douglas McInroy (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of his 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 Monday, June 16, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, the appellant 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 ground that that he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that his driver's licence was not under suspension at the time the motor vehicle he was driving was detained in order to be impounded. The appellant also appeals on the ground that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

3The issues in dispute are:

1. Pursuant to section 50.2(3)(c) of the Act, whether the appellant exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that his driver’s licence was not under suspension at the time the motor vehicle he was driving was detained in order to be impounded; and

2. Pursuant to section 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.

ANALYSIS

5For the Tribunal to order the Registrar to release a vehicle that has been impounded pursuant to section 55.1 the Act, an appellant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that they satisfy one or more of the grounds for appeal set out in section 50.2 of the Act. In all cases, the burden of proof lies with the appellant.

The appellant has established that he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that his driver’s licence was not under suspension at the time his motor vehicle was detained in order to be impounded.

6I am satisfied that the appellant exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that his driver’s licence was not under suspension at the time his motor vehicle was detained in order to be impounded.

7In 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.

8Although 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 he or she is properly licensed is not sufficient to establish that due diligence was taken.

9For context, the driver’s licence suspension associated with the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle arises from a criminal conviction for dangerous driving, entered by the Court on January 10, 2025. A driver record search produced by the respondent (dated July 11, 2025) shows the suspension was ordered for a period of one-year until January 10, 2026. I therefore accept, as fact, that the appellant’s driver’s licence was indeed suspended on June 16, 2025, when his vehicle was detained for impoundment.

10However, I nevertheless find the applicant took reasonable actions to determine he was properly licensed at the time his vehicle was detained for impoundment.

11The applicant testified that he understood there was no suspension or prohibition on his driver’s licence at the time he was pulled over by police on June 16, 2025. He based his belief on a record search he says he obtained from Ontario’s transportation ministry in March 2025 to support due diligence checks his employer was conducting to ensure its Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration was compliant. I find this document—which is dated March 11, 2025 and identifies the same driver’s licence number as that entered by police on the Notice To Registrar—indicates the appellant’s status is licensed (i.e., not suspended). The respondent did not challenge the authenticity of this document, and, in my view, it is persuasive evidence of a reasonable action taken by the appellant that supports his belief that he was properly licensed at the time his vehicle was detained for impoundment.

12Further, I find this evidence corroborates the applicant’s testimony that he was able to successfully renew his licence the following month. The appellant related that he wrote a test on March 29, 2025, and subsequently renewed his licence at the Service Ontario office next door to the examination centre on April 4, 2025. Given the licensing status indicated on his driver record search a month prior, I accept the appellant’s testimony that he learned nothing of his January 2025 licence suspension that day and was able to renew his licence.

13I did not place much weight on the suspension letter produced by the respondent to show the appellant was notified that his driver’s licence was suspended effective January 10, 2025. This is because I am not satisfied that the appellant received the letter prior to June 16, 2025. The letter indicates it was sent by registered mail on June 12, 2025—just four days before the appellant’s vehicle was detained for impoundment. The appellant testified that he was not in receipt of this letter at the time he was stopped by police. While the respondent is not strictly required to produce proof of delivery for registered mail, it remains that it did not and I therefore gave it little weight in this matter.

14Taken in totality on a balance of probabilities, I find this evidence establishes that the appellant took reasonable actions to determine he was properly licensed. He obtained a record search contemporaneous to his vehicle impoundment that showed he was licensed, and accordingly, I accept his testimony that he subsequently renewed his licence with no indication of a suspension. I find the respondent’s suspension letter weighs little against the appellant’s evidence because it was issued just days before his vehicle was detained and impounded—notwithstanding that the suspension had been in effect for six months by that time—with no evidence to show the letter was delivered by June 16, 2025. As such, I find that the appellant has established that he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that his driver’s licence was not under suspension at the time his motor vehicle was detained in order to be impounded.

The appellant’s claim of exceptional hardship

15Since I have found that the appellant’s impounded motor vehicle is to be released per section 50.2(3)(c) of the Act, I find it is unnecessary to determine whether another ground for appeal has been established.

Conclusion

16I find the appellant has established that he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that his driver’s licence was not under suspension at the time his motor vehicle was detained in order to be impounded.

ORDER

17The Tribunal orders that the Registrar shall release the impounded vehicle.