Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18131/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 suspended

Between:

Jane Marten

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Rupinder Hans Nikisha Evans

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Jane Marten, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: 01/29/2026

OVERVIEW

1Jane Marten, (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 Wednesday, January 14, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, she 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 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:

i. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(b) of the Act, whether 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;

RESULT

4For the reasons set out below the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

The driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was then under suspension.

5We are not satisfied 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.

6The appellant testified that, in January 2020, she was charged with an offence for driving while impaired while driving in Ottawa and she pled guilty to the offence before an Ontario Court. She testified that, at the time, she resided in Quebec, and she attended the Société de I’assurance automobile due Quebec (“SAAQ”) and completed the steps it required including completing an assessment and using an interlock device on her vehicle for a one-year period which ended sometime in 2025. She testified she was surprised when a RCMP officer told her that her driving privileges were suspended at the time the vehicle was detained in order to be impounded. The appellant testified she was driving in Ottawa at the time with a valid Quebec driver’s licence.

7The appellant testified that she had not received the Notice of Suspension of Driver’s Licence, dated August 21, 2020, from Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) advising of the suspension as it was mailed to an Ontario address where her in-laws resided, and they had not notified her. She testified she had not notified the MTO that her address had changed to a Quebec address. However, we do not find this determinative as the appellant pled guilty to the Criminal Code offence before an Ontario court, and acknowledged she paid fines and understood she needed to complete certain requirements. However, she testified that her understanding was that once she completed the steps as required by the SAAQ, her Ontario driving privileges were restored, and she did not know she had outstanding requirements in Ontario.

8The appellant acknowledged she had not communicated with the MTO to advise she had completed the requisite steps.

9The Registrar presented documentary evidence demonstrating that the appellant’s driving privileges remain suspended in Ontario. The Registrar presented the appellant’s Extended Driver Record Search, dated January 27, 2026, which states “suspended indefinitely for blood/alcohol content in excess of .08, CCC.” The conviction date is August 11, 2020. The agent for the Registrar, Ms. Pereira, testified that it was the appellant’s responsibility to notify the MTO that she had completed the impaired driving program in another province. She further testified that, upon receipt of information from the appellant, the MTO would then determine if all requirements were completed or not.

10We find Ms. Pereira’s testimony along with the Extended Driver Record Search to be persuasive in establishing that the appellant’s driving privileges were suspended in Ontario at the time the vehicle was detained in order to be impounded.

11We find that, while the appellant may have a valid Quebec driver’s licence, her Ontario driver’s licence or privilege to drive was suspended. We note s. 36 of the Act, states that “[a] person whose driver’s licence or privilege to drive a motor vehicle in Ontario has been suspended shall not drive a motor vehicle or street car in Ontario under a driver’s licence or permit issued by any other jurisdiction during the suspension.” She is required to comply with the Ontario regulatory scheme to have the suspension lifted on her Ontario driving privileges.

12The appellant testified she has now notified the MTO that she has completed the required remedial program and necessary steps. She is awaiting a response from the MTO.

13We find the appellant has not established that the driver’s licence of the driver, which is her, of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension.

Conclusion

14We find that:

i. the appellant has not established 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

15The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.