Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16641/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:

Krystin D. Walker

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR:

Colin Osterberg

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Krystin D. Walker, self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: January 30, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Krystin D. Walker (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of her 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 January 16, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, the appellant’s partner Robert Jason Dooley (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 she 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.

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

5I find that the appellant has failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence was not under suspension when the vehicle was detained in order to be impounded. Her 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 she took reasonable steps to determine that the driver’s licence was not suspended. In this context, due diligence requires more than making assumptions of the facts. It requires steps to be taken by the owner to confirm the driver’s assertion that his or her licence was not suspended and that it was valid. The specific steps that amount to due diligence depend on the circumstances of each case.

7The appellant testified that she did not know the driver did not have a licence. I accept her evidence in this regard. However, the issue is whether the appellant exercised due diligence to attempt to determine that the driver’s licence was not under suspension. This requires adequate steps be taken.

8In this case, the appellant says she has known the driver since March 2024 and has been living with him since the summer of 2024. Prior to the day of the impoundment, the appellant was aware that the driver had a number of speeding tickets in the past and that he was waiting for resolution of a recent street racing charge in the courts. The appellant testified that she knew the driver was prone to incidents of road rage. She did not know about the dangerous driving conviction which resulted in the driver losing his licence.

9In find that, in the circumstances of this case, where the driver was known to the appellant for a relatively short time and was known by the appellant to have a poor driving history, in order to have been duly diligent, the appellant should have taken steps to ensure that the driver’s licence was valid including, at the very least, asking to see the licence and examining the licence to ensure its validity. In order to constitute due diligence for the purposes of the Act, this should have been done on the day, or shortly before, the driver was allowed to drive the vehicle.

10The appellant says she had seen the driver’s licence in the summer of 2024. She asked to see it in order to verify that the driver had told her his age accurately. She did not say that she reviewed the licence to determine if it was valid or not, but simply looked at the driver’s date of birth. Accepting this to be true, the review of the licence as described would not have informed the appellant whether the licence was valid or not. This action is insufficient to amount to due diligence in accordance with the Act.

11The appellant did not make further enquiries to determine if the driver’s licence was valid. She did not ask to see the licence in order to determine its validity either in the summer of 2024 or closer to the time the vehicle was impounded. She did not ask the driver if he had a valid licence. The appellant simply assumed the driver had a valid licence and that he would tell her if he did not. I find this to be insufficient to establish due diligence under the Act.

12The appellant argued that no-one asks to see a person’s licence before they lend them their vehicle, and no-one asks to examine a driver’s licence before allowing them to drive their vehicle. The appellant did not present evidence in support of these assertions, and I do not accept them to be true. Even if I accept that in some cases, less action is required than those I have found necessary in the present circumstances to establish due diligence, for the reasons set out above, simply assuming that the driver had a valid licence is insufficient.

13I find that the appellant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence was not under suspension when the vehicle was detained in order to be impounded. Her 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.

Released: January 31, 2025

__________________________

Colin Osterberg

Vice-Chair