Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18080/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 pursuant to Section 55.1 of the Act.
Between:
Nancy Blanco Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Nancy Blanco Mayra Gonzalez, daughter of appellant (assisting with translation) Octavio Gomez, son of appellant and witness
For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent
Heard: February 5, 2026
OVERVIEW
1The appellant, Nancy Blanco, appeals the 45-day impoundment of her 2014 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act").
2The appellant's vehicle was impounded on November 22, 2025 and released on January 6, 2026. Her vehicle was impounded after police found it being operated by her son, Octavio Gomez (O.G.) whose driver's licence was suspended and subject to an ignition interlock condition on reinstatement. The suspension arises from a Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 ("Criminal Code") offence.
3Subsection 55.1(1) of the Act allows for the impoundment of a vehicle for 45 days where a police officer is satisfied that the driver's licence of the person who is driving a vehicle at the time of its detention is under suspension for certain Criminal Code offences. In this case, O.G.'s driver's licence was suspended for driving with a blood/alcohol content in excess of 0.08, for which he was convicted on December 6, 2023.
4The appellant filed her appeal with the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal") on December 6, 2025. The appellant appeals under s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act submitting that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver's licence of the driver at the time the vehicle was detained to be impounded was not then under suspension.
5The onus of proving this ground of appeal rests with the appellant. To succeed in her appeal, the appellant must establish this ground on a balance of probabilities.
ISSUE
6For me to make a determination in this case, I must answer the following question: Has the appellant demonstrated that she exercised due diligence?
RESULT
7Having considered the parties' evidence and submissions, I find that the appellant has demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver's licence of O.G. was not under suspension at the time of the impoundment.
ANALYSIS
Has the appellant demonstrated due diligence?
8The Act does not provide a definition of due diligence. However, previous rulings of the Court and the Tribunal provide guidance as what constitutes due diligence for these purposes.
9In considering the extent of those actions, 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. In Horst v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 106454 (ON LAT), the Tribunal applied this test to the due diligence ground of appeal in an impoundment case like this one.
10The Tribunal, in 10719 v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2017 CanLII 35348 (ON LAT), found that the extent of inquiry and action to determine the validity of a licence may also depend on the nature of the relationship between the owner and the driver, as well as on the circumstances under which the driver is permitted to use the vehicle.
11To prove due diligence, the appellant must establish that she took reasonable care and undertook actions to determine that the driver was properly licensed. Reasonable care does not mean perfection and is considered in the context of the circumstances under which use of the vehicle is being permitted by its owner.
12I find that the appellant has met a standard that would persuade me that she exercised due diligence in this case. During the hearing, the appellant stated that she had reason to believe that her son's licence was valid according to information available to her at that time. She explained that she accompanied her son on February 24, 2025, to Service Ontario to obtain his driver's licence after the suspension period, as noted on a Prohibition Order given to O.G. in court on December 6, 2023 (Exhibit #3), came to an end. At that time, Service Ontario issued O.G. a driver's licence with no outstanding suspensions or conditions (including ignition interlock). Staff at Service Ontario also did not alert him to any suspension and indicated his licence was clear and valid.
13Between that time and when the vehicle was impounded on November 22, 2025, the driver did not receive any additional correspondence or correction on the status of his driver's licence. Both the appellant and O.G. were confused after the vehicle was impounded due to O.G.'s licence being suspended. They live in the same household and deny receiving any notice of suspension beyond the period that is indicated on the Prohibition Order. In addition to this, on the same day of the impoundment the appellant immediately checked her son's driver's licence status on the Ministry of Transportation ("MTO") website. The result showed "valid" for the driver's licence number issued to O.G. A copy of this result was submitted as Exhibit #4.
14Based on this official verification, the appellant asserts that she had reason to believe that the licence he was carrying was not suspended and he was legally permitted to drive. This is the same assumption she formed after seeing him receive a driver's licence from Service Ontario earlier in the year. She also formed this opinion since the Prohibition Order issued to her son states an impoundment period of one year from its issuance on December 6, 2023. Hence, the suspension would have ended on December 6, 2024. O.G.'s application for his driver's licence two months after this follows a logical course of action.
15The appellant's witness also corroborated this story and his understanding of the issuance of the driver's licence. He explained that after the impoundment, he and his mother went back to Service Ontario at which time they confirmed that there were two duplicate driver files under the driver's name. The suspension and related correspondence indicating suspension and ignition interlock were on the duplicate file. He testified that this correspondence may have been sent to a previous address since he did not receive anything related to this at his current home.
16The respondent asserts that the information would have been sent by registered mail according to standard protocol, however, there was no additional documentation to support this or confirm that delivery of the letter had occurred. The respondent also submits that the appellant and his mother ought to have known that another licence was created after they attended the Service Ontario on February 24, 2025. I do not agree with this position as the appellant and O.G. attended the office with the sole purpose of obtaining a driver's licence after the Prohibition Order suspension date came to an end. It would be reasonable for the public to believe that any suspensions, conditions, etc. would be identified at the office that issues licences. This is coupled with the fact that the MTO website shows the driver's licence issued to O.G. as being valid.
17I considered the fact that due diligence is demonstrated through taking reasonable care to ensure that the driver has a valid driver's licence. In this case, I find that reasonable actions were taken by the appellant to ensure O.G. was properly licenced to drive.
18I find that the actions taken by the appellant to verify the driver's licence of O.G. showed due diligence. Therefore, she was successful in proving her ground of appeal.
ORDER
19For the reasons set out above, pursuant to the Tribunal's authority under s. 50.2(5) of the Act, I set aside the impoundment and order the respondent to return vehicle.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
Released: February 18, 2026