Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17962/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:

Enterprise Rent A Car Company Canada

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Kevin Kovalchuk

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Sinthuran Mahendran, Representative

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: By Teleconference December 3, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Enterprise Rent a Car Company Canada, (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 Sunday, November 2, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, Albert Smyth (the “driver”) was driving the vehicle while their driver's licence was subject to a condition that prohibits them from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device as described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1). A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 180 days.

2The appellant appeals on the grounds that that they 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 subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1) and that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship

ISSUES

3The issues in dispute are:

i. pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act, whether the appellant 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 subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1); and

ii. 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.

ANALYSIS

The appellant has not established that they 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 subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1)

5I am not satisfied that the appellant 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 subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1).

6In considering what actions might amount to due diligence, the Supreme Court of Canada, in 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.

7Although due diligence does not require perfection, it does require that the appellant must establish that they took reasonable actions to determine that the driver was properly licensed rather than simply assuming that to be true. In general, the driver’s own representation that they are properly licensed is not sufficient to establish that due diligence was taken.

8Mr. Sinthuran Mahendran, a head office employee of the appellant testified that the driver rented the vehicle in Ontario and signed a contract confirming that his driver’s licence was legal and valid at that time.

9Mr. Mahendran testified regarding what steps the appellant takes in checking a driver’s licence of someone renting a vehicle. The appellant would verify that the licence was up to date and valid and look for indication of any type of restrictions on the licence. He testified that a licence that was subject to an “interlock” restriction would have an “I” on the back of the licence and that the appellant’s employees would check for that restriction.

10Mr. Mahendran testified that the appellant does not contact the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (“MTO”) or use the online tools provided by the MTO to check the status of a driver’s licence. He testified that these checks would slow down the rental process. His evidence was that the appellant verifies that the licence is “true and legit” by looking at and examining the licence. They sometimes use a UV light to identify if the licence is real, altered, or fake.

11Mr. Mahendran offered general testimony on what steps are normally taken to verify that an Ontario licence is subject to any restrictions at the time of rental. The appellant did not present any evidence either in the form of oral testimony or affidavit evidence from any employees of the appellant who may have been able to testify as to what specific steps were taken to verify the driver’s licence in question.

12In my view, the appellant needs to provide more than just general testimony, that it exercised due diligence in determining that the driver’s licence in question did not contain any restrictions at the time of the rental. An affidavit or oral testimony from the employee that rented the vehicle to the driver would carry much more weight than general testimony.

13I find the appellant’s assertion that checking with the MTO would slow down the rental process is not a satisfactory reason for not performing due diligence. The protection of the driving public should take precedence over the expediency of the rental process.

14In addition, the appellant’s reliance upon the rental contract to confirm that a driver’s licence does not contain any restrictions is not sufficient to establish that due diligence was taken. The appellant needs to demonstrate that it took reasonable actions to determine that the driver was properly licenced rather than simply accepting a driver’s own representation that they are properly licensed.

15I find that the appellant has not established that they 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 subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1).

The impoundment will not cause exceptional hardship.

16I 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”).

17The 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.

18If 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.

19If 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.

20The 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).

21The Tribunal can never consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to a person.

Alternative to the impounded vehicle

22I am not satisfied that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

23Mr. Mahendran testified that, given the impoundment, the appellant is not generating any income from renting the impounded vehicle and is losing money. During cross examination he acknowledged that the appellant has the ability to start a court action against the driver to pursue costs and losses but that the appellant does not do so.

24Notably Mr. Mahendran testified that the appellant has 50,000 vehicles in Ontario 30,000 of which are in the Greater Toronto Area. In my view this is clear evidence establishing that there are alternatives available to the appellant.

25I find that the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

26Since the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, exceptional hardship has not been established in accordance with the Act and the Regulation and I need not consider the remaining factors for determining exceptional hardship.

Conclusion(s)

27I find that:

i. the appellant has not established that they 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 subject to the condition described in paragraph 2 of subsection 55.1(1).

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

ORDER

28The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

Released: January 8, 2026

__________________________

Kevin Kovalchuk

Vice-Chair