Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18542/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:

Steven Donkers

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR:

Jeffery Campbell

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Steven Donkers, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Martin He, Representative

Heard by teleconference:

April 22, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Steven Donkers (the “Appellant”), appeals the impoundment of his 2022 Hyundai R3G (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 Saturday, March 31, 2026. At the time of the impoundment, J.M. 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 and that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

3The issues to be determined are:

I. 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 under suspension and/or subject to an ignition interlock conditions pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act.

II. Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

ANALYSIS

4For the Tribunal to order the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (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.

5The Registrar tendered evidence that the vehicle was stopped by police while it was being driven by the J.M., whose licence was suspended due to a prescribed Criminal Code conviction. I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was validly impounded.

i. The Appellant did not exercise due diligence

6I 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 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 an 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, part of helping his co-worker, J.M., through a difficult time in his life was allowing him to borrow the vehicle. The Appellant testified that he has known J.M. for five months and had witnessed him driving a number of times. Upon questioning the Appellant admitted that he had not asked to see J.M.’s driver’s licence and had not checked the validity of the driver’s licence online or with Service Ontario. He had seen driver’s licence once when J.M. opened his wallet when paying for dinner in a “dimly lit establishment”. The Appellant did not see the expiry date and described the licence as a “shiny light colored” but did not know if it was an Ontario driver’s licence or a Newfoundland driver’s licence (which province J.M. originated from).

10The Registrar submits that the Appellant did not conduct due diligence in that he did not ask to see the driver’s licence nor verify J.M.’s licence on the Ministry of Transportation website or with Service Ontario.

11While I do not find it necessary that an Appellant possess the capability to verify a driver’s licence online or to contact ServiceOntario with the driver present for the purposes of validation, due diligence nevertheless requires, at a minimum, that the Appellant ask to examine the driver’s licence. The Appellant, however, did not do so. Instead, he relied on his past observations of J.M. operating a motor vehicle and on a brief glance at the licence as it remained inside the plastic sleeve of J.M.’s wallet, viewed in a dimly lit establishment.

12I have no doubt that it was out of the Appellant’s kindness of heart in attempting to assist J.M. through a difficult time. However, in doing so, the Appellant failed to exercise the necessary due diligence as required by the Act.

ii. The impoundment will not cause exceptional hardship

13I 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”).

Alternative to the impounded vehicle

14I find that there are alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

15The Appellant lives with his wife and three children, ages 12, 16 and 18. The Appellant owns and operates a welding business.

16The Appellant testified that, after allowing J.M. to drive the vehicle, the vehicle was involved in a collision shortly thereafter and was towed to the impound yard upon the impoundment. Although the attending officer advised the Appellant that the vehicle was a “write-off”, the Appellant’s insurer has advised him that it will be unable to assess the vehicle until it is released from impound.

17The Appellant testified (and the Registrar confirmed by way of RIN Summaries) that, as well as the impounded vehicle, he also owns a 2006 Ford Ranger which his 18 year old son drives and a 2016 Dodge Ram which he uses as his welding rig. His wife also owns a 2024 Mustang Mach E. He further testified that taxi service, Uber and rental vehicles are available for his use.

18According to the Appellant, no medical appointments have been missed since the impoundment and, to his knowledge, his 12- and 16-year-old children have not missed any school. The impoundment of the vehicle has also not affected the Appellant’s work, as he utilizes the Dodge Ram for those purposes.

19The Respondent submits that the Appellant has access to three other vehicles, as well as to Uber, taxi services, and rental vehicles, which, the Respondent argues, constitute reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

20I agree with the Registrar. Regulation 631/98 under the Act sets out the criteria that the Tribunal must consider when determining whether the Appellant has established that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship. Under 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.

21If the owner fails to prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, then the appeal on the basis of exceptional hardship must be dismissed and the Tribunal need not consider the remaining factors set out in the Regulation related to exceptional hardship.

22The Tribunal is not permitted to consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to a person.

23It is clear from the Appellants testimony that he has access to, not only the other vehicles available to him, but also to taxis, ride sharing and rental vehicles. As such, I find that the impoundment of the vehicle will not cause exceptional hardship as defined by the Regulation.

Conclusion

24I find that the Appellant has not exercised due diligence as required by the Act and that the impoundment will not cause exceptional hardship as defined by the Act and the Regulation.

ORDER

25The Tribunal orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

Jeffery Campbell

Vice-Chair