Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17232/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:
Louise Kechego
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Laura Hodgson, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Louise Kechego, Self-Represented
For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Representative
Held by teleconference: August 5, 2025
Overview
1On April 18, 2025, a vehicle registered to Terry Albert was detained and impounded under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 8 (the “Act”), after being driven by someone whose licence was suspended at the time for a Criminal Code related reason.
2The impoundment was appealed by Louise Kechego. In the Notice of Appeal, Ms. Kechego indicated that the vehicle owner – Mr. Albert, was her partner and that he died on May 2, 2025. The Notice detailed that the appellant resided at a shelter and the impoundment has caused hardship. As the appeal was filed late, the appellant also filed a Notice of Motion for an extension of time to appeal. The motion and hearing were scheduled to be heard on July 22, 2025.
3The appellant did not appear for the hearing on July 22, 2025, and could not be reached. At that time, the respondent noted its preliminary position was that the appellant lacked standing to appeal the impoundment as only the owner of a motor vehicle (or in this case the estate of the owner) can appeal to the Tribunal under the Act. The respondent had not filed a Notice of Motion contesting the appellant’s standing.
4Given concerns that the appellant was unaware of the hearing date because of her living circumstances and, was unaware that the respondent contested her standing, the hearing was rescheduled to today, August 5, 2025. As requested, the respondent served and filed a Notice of Motion prior to today’s hearing date. The appellant attended the hearing.
Respondent’s Preliminary Motion
The Appellant Does Not Have Standing to Appeal
5The respondent asserts that the appellant has no standing to bring this appeal as she is not the registered owner of the vehicle nor has she established that she is the administrator of the estate of Terry Albert, the motor vehicle owner. The respondent points to Ministry of Transportation records that indicate Terry Albert is the registered vehicle owner.
6Ms. Kechego indicated that her partner, Terry Albert, died in May without a will. She has experienced very difficult living circumstances and financial hardships since that time. Ms. Kechego has now started the process of seeking authority to administer Mr. Albert’s estate and to transfer the vehicle ownership.
7I agree with the respondent that the appellant does not have standing to appeal this impoundment. Under the Act, an appellant must be an “owner” to have a right of appeal. Section 50.2 provides:
(1) The owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under section 55.1 may, upon paying the fee established by the Tribunal, appeal the impoundment to the Tribunal.
(2) The owner and the Registrar are the parties to an appeal under this section. (emphasis added)
8Further, the remedy the Tribunal can order is limited to the ““owner” of the impounded vehicle (see s.50.2(7)).
9“Owner” is defined as follows at s. 50.2 (11) of the Act:
“owner” means each person whose name appears on the certificate of registration for the vehicle but in subsection (4) “owner” means the person whose name appears on the plate portion of a permit in cases where the certificate of registration consists of a vehicle portion and a plate portion and different persons are named on each portion. (“propriétaire”) 1997, c. 12, s. 5; 2000, c. 26, Sched. O, s. 3 (2).
10Here, the name Terry Albert appears on both the certificate of registration and the plate portion of the permit. The appellant is not the owner of the vehicle, nor has she provided any evidence to establish she is the beneficial owner.
11As the appellant is not the owner as defined in the Act, she does not have standing to appeal the impoundment and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
12As discussed at the hearing, it may be open to the estate administrator to bring a motion to the Tribunal seeking an extension of time to appeal the impoundment of Mr. Albert’s vehicle. There is no guarantee that such a motion would be allowed.
Order
13The Tribunal orders that the appeal be dismissed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_________________________
Laura Hodgson
Adjudicator
Released: August 13, 2025