Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18181/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:

Avery Mayhew

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Dagmara Szczudlo

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Avery Mayhew, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD: January 29, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Avery Mayhew, (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 Sunday, December 28, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, the appellant was driving the vehicle while his Ontario licence was suspended. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

2The appellant appeals on the following grounds:

i. that 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;

ii. 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 subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1); and

iii. that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

3The issues in dispute are:

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;

ii. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(b.1) 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 subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1);

iii. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act, whether that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

RESULT

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

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

5The appellant served and filed evidence outlined in paragraph [13] below during the hearing. The respondent reviewed the materials during a short break and did not object to their use by the Tribunal.

The law

6For the Tribunal to order the Registrar to release a vehicle that has been impounded pursuant to s. 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 s. 50.2(3) of the Act. In all cases, the burden of proof lies with the appellant.

7Section 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.”

8Section 40(1) of the Act states that the Minister may enter into a reciprocal agreement with the government of any province or territory of Canada for the sanctioning by the licensing jurisdiction of drivers from that jurisdiction who commit offences in the other jurisdiction and for the issuance of a driver’s license by one jurisdiction in exchange for a driver’s licence issued by the other jurisdiction.

ANALYSIS

Although the driver had a valid Quebec licence, his Ontario driver’s licence was under suspension at the time his vehicle was detained to be impounded.

9I am satisfied that the Ontario driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained to be impounded was then under suspension.

10The appellant was convicted of a criminal offence in Quebec in 2017. At that time, he had a valid Ontario driver’s licence which was suspended for 1 year because of the conviction. He was required to complete a mandatory educational program and upon reinstatement, his licence was subject to a condition requiring that any vehicle he operates to be equipped with an approved ignition interlock device. The appellant testified that he moved to Quebec shortly after the event leading to the conviction, and in time obtained his driving privileges in that province.

11The appellant testified that he did not know that his Ontario driving privileges were suspended due to the Quebec conviction. He stated that he did not receive a letter which was sent by registered mail to his former Ontario address by the Ministry of Transportation on November 1, 2017 because he was living in Quebec at that time.

12The appellant further testified that he completed a Program to Assess and Reduce the Risk of Impaired Driving (“PERRCCA”) to obtain his Quebec driver’s licence. His vehicle was equipped with an approved ignition interlock device and in time, he received authorization to drive without an alcohol ignition interlock device from Société de l’assurance automobile Quebec on July 18, 2023.

13The appellant relies on the following evidence to support his submission that he was a licenced driver in the province of Quebec and his Quebec licence did not have an ignition interlock device condition on the date his vehicle was impounded in Ontario:

i. Quebec Information Concerning the Driver’s Record dated December 29, 2025;

ii. Quebec ‘Withdrawal of the licence condition that only authorizes you to drive with an alcohol ignition interlock device’ letter dated July 3, 2024;

iii. Quebec ‘Authorization to drive without an alcohol ignition interlock device’ letter dated July 18, 2023; and

iv. Photos of a Quebec driver’s licence issued October 30, 2024 and expiring February 6, 2027.

14The respondent presented evidence, namely the Extended Driver Record Search and the Driver Status by Date, which establishes that the appellant’s Ontario driver’s licence was suspended since September 18, 2017. On the day of the impoundment, he was pulled over in Ottawa, and since he was driving while his Ontario licence was suspended, the car was detained.

15The respondent submits that the appellant’s Quebec driver’s license would be accepted in Ontario if there are no cancellations or suspensions in Ontario as per the interprovincial agreement between the provinces. Obtaining a driver’s licence out of province does not automatically reinstate former driving privileges in Ontario and the jurisdictions do not share information that would enable such updates without the driver’s involvement. Action is required from the appellant to submit proof of compliance in the other province to the Ministry of Transportation, who will then determine whether the information is sufficient for reinstatement of their right to drive in Ontario.

16Continuing their submissions, the respondent noted that the appellant took action to reinstate his Ontario driving privileges by contacting the Driver Improvement Office in January 2026. Although documents from Quebec were provided, the applicant did not provide acceptable proof of residency documents to permit review and updates to his Ontario driver’s licence record. This must be rectified by the appellant to avoid future Act offenses while driving in Ontario.

17The respondent argues that since the appellant had an unresolved licence suspension in Ontario and did not take action to update his record based on his compliance in another province, the impoundment should be confirmed.

18Both parties presented compelling evidence to support their respective positions regarding the appellant’s driver’s licence status. The appellant demonstrated that he completed mandatory remedial reinstatement conditions in another province and the respondent met their onus to prove that his Ontario licence remained suspended despite a favourable outcome in Quebec. Based on s. 36 of the Act and the evidence presented, the appellant was driving in Ontario while his Ontario licence was suspended.

19The appellant views this situation as an administrative lapse between jurisdictions. He assumed that since provinces share certain driver offence information, that resolution of these offences would also automatically be shared without his involvement. In my view, this is not a reasonable assumption particularly since the appellant lives near, and frequently crosses the provincial boundary. A reasonable course of action would be to ask whether his driving privileges in Ontario were reinstated along with his Quebec licence.

20The powers of the Tribunal are outlined in s. 50.2 (5) of the Act and are limited to confirming the impoundment or ordering the Registrar to release the motor vehicle based on specific grounds of appeal. While it is clear to me that the appellant did not disregard the lessons from his criminal conviction and took action to complete mandatory remedial reinstatement conditions in Quebec, the Act does not permit me to consider the reasonableness of the outcome, the proportionality of the offence to the penalty in these circumstances, nor to substitute my opinion for that of the Registrar.

21As per s. 36 of the Act, I find that the Ontario driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained to be impounded was then under suspension.

22Since I found that the appellant didn’t have a valid Ontario license, I am not required to consider whether an interlock was required, since either is enough to support the impoundment. Accordingly, I’ll now turn to whether the remaining ground of exceptional hardship has been established.

The impoundment will not cause exceptional hardship

23I am not satisfied that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship as that term is defined under O. Reg. 631/98 under the Act (the “Regulation”).

24The Regulation sets out the criteria that the Tribunal is required to consider when determining whether the appellant has established that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship under the Act. According to the Regulation, the Tribunal must first determine whether no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available. Subsection 10(4) states that in order to show that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle:

[T]he owner must demonstrate that every reasonable option has been considered and inquired into that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss to the person, including using another vehicle and making arrangements to do without any motor vehicle during the impound period.

25If the owner fails to prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, then the appeal on the basis of exceptional hardship will fail and the Tribunal need not consider the remaining factors set out in the Regulation related to exceptional hardship.

26If the owner establishes that there is no alternative available, the Tribunal must then consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle, a threat to public health and safety, or a threat to the environment or property of a community in whose service the vehicle is ordinarily used.

27The Tribunal is generally precluded by s. 10(2) from considering financial or economic loss, loss of employment or an employment opportunity, or loss of education or training or an opportunity for education or training. However, s. 10(3) provides that the Tribunal can consider these things if the owner demonstrates the following:

(a) no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available;

(b) the loss will be immediate, significant and lasting;

(c) the impact of the loss will be upon a person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle; and

(d) the impact of the loss,

(i) will be upon a person other than the person whose driving while his or her driver’s licence was under suspension resulted in the impoundment of the motor vehicle, and

(ii) will not be a result of a loss by the suspended driver of the type set out in clause (2) (b), (c) or (d).

28The Tribunal can never consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to a person.

Alternative to the impounded vehicle

29I am not satisfied that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

30The appellant submits that the impoundment will result in exceptional financial hardship and testified that he uses the 2019 Dodge Ram pickup truck to meet his personal needs and to commute to his consulting project on a farm which is located over an hour away from his residence in Gatineau, Quebec. He is a self-employed consultant for a producer of a regulated product and is responsible for compliance and regulatory audit activities.

31Continuing his testimony, the appellant stated that he works regular business hours, Monday to Friday. He is expected at the production site every day to support an audit, however, his ability to commute to work has been impacted by the impoundment. To date, he received rides to the work site and relied on assistance from his father to pick up his young children during handovers with his former partner. Finally, the appellant stated that he borrowed funds to purchase another vehicle a week prior to the hearing to secure an alternate form of transportation.

32The respondent submits that alternative forms of transportation are available and have been used by the appellant during the impoundment to meet his personal needs. The respondent argues that financial and economic loss cannot be considered and requests that the Tribunal confirms the decision of the respondent.

33I considered the testimony of both parties and find that the appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no alternative to the impounded car. I find that to date the appellant has been able to access alternatives to meet his personal and family needs and purchased a second vehicle recently.

34The legislation does not permit me to consider financial or economic loss as factors unless there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, which is not the case.

35I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

Conclusions

36I find that:

a. the appellant has not established that his Ontario driver’s licence at the time his vehicle was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension;

b. the appellant has not established that his Ontario driver’s licence at the time his vehicle was detained to be impounded was not then subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1).

c. the appellant has not established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ORDER

37The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

Released: February 13, 2026

__________________________

Dagmara Szczudlo

Adjudicator