Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18332/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:

John Veniot

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Gary Harvey, Adjudicator Raymond Ramdayal, Adjudicator

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

John Veniot, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Observer:

Stephen Grootenboer, Representative Martin He (for the Respondent)

Heard by teleconference: March 6, 2026

OVERVIEW

1John Veniot (the “appellant”), appeals the impoundment of his 2011 BMW 328i (the “vehicle”) under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The vehicle was impounded on Thursday, February 19, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, R.F. (the “driver”) was driving the vehicle while his driver's licence was under suspension due to a criminal conviction.

2The appellant appeals on the grounds that he 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 under suspension.

ISSUES

3The issue to be determined is:

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 suspended, under s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act.

RESULT

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

ANALYSIS

5For 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 of the Act. In all cases, the burden of proof lies with the appellant.

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 under suspension

6We are 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 under suspension.

7In 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.

8Although 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.

9The appellant testified that he assists his two sons with their snow removal business and completes driver’s licence checks through the Ministry of Transportation’s online portal for anyone in the company that could be operating the company truck. The driver works for the company, however, was not an employee that would be in a position to operate the company truck, so an online Ministry of Transportation check was never completed, and the driver was never requested to supply a copy of his driver’s licence to the company as others were.

10The appellant submits that he asked the driver if he had a licence during his time of employment, which the driver verbally indicated that he did, however the appellant never physically saw the driver’s licence. In closing submissions, the appellant stated that after the impound took place the driver told him that his licence is “good” and that “the issue had passed.” The appellant submits that if he knew the driver’s licence of the driver was suspended, he would not have permitted him to drive his vehicle.

11The respondent submitted documentary evidence showing that the driver of the vehicle was under suspension at the time of impound for a Criminal Code conviction. The respondent submitted that the appellant did not exercise due diligence as he never asked to see the driver’s licence of the driver and at the time of impound the driver did not have a licence in his possession to present to the police. The respondent submits that the appellant testified that he is aware of how to conduct online driver’s licence checks but did not conduct one for the driver in this instance.

12We find that the appellant has not established that he 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 under suspension. He did not demonstrate that he took reasonable care and undertook the actions a reasonable person would have taken in the same or similar circumstances.

13We are not persuaded by the appellant’s testimony as he indicated that he never asked to see the driver’s licence of the driver prior to letting him operate his vehicle. The appellant solely sought verbal confirmation that the driver had a licence. The appellant testified that he conducts driver’s licence checks online through the Ministry of Transportation portal for his two sons’ business, however did not do this in this instance.

14Accordingly, we find that the appellant has not established that he 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 under suspension.

CONCLUSION

15We find that the appellant has not established that he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence of the driver at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension.

ORDER

16The Tribunal orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.