Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18042/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:

Bhupinder Singh

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Rupinder Hans

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Bhupinder Singh, Self-represented Jasbir Singh (son of appellant)

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

HEARD by Teleconference: January 8, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Bhupinder Singh (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of her 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 Monday, November 17, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, her son Jasbir Singh (the “driver”) was driving the vehicle with a suspended licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

2A hearing in the matter was first scheduled for December 10, 2025 but the appellant did not attend, and the hearing was adjourned to December 18, 2025. At the outset of the hearing on December 18, 2025, the appellant sought and was granted another adjournment. This is the third hearing date in this matter.

3The appellant appeals on the grounds that she 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 that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

4The appellant’s son assisted her during the hearing.

ISSUES

5The 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 under suspension; and

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

RESULT

6For the reasons set out below the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

The appellant has not established that she 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

7I am not persuaded 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.

8In 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.

9Although due diligence does not require perfection, it does require that the appellant establish she 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.

10The specific steps that amount to due diligence depend on the circumstances of each case. The Tribunal has previously held that these steps or actions could include examining the driver’s licence card or document, viewing Ministry of Transportation Ontario (“MTO”) documents that pertain to the driver’s licence status, inquiring of the MTO online or at Service Ontario as to the driver’s licence status, or discussing the licence status in conversation with the driver. These various steps or actions are not an exhaustive list. The level of inquiry and action required can depend on the nature of the relationship between the owner and the driver.

11The appellant testified that she did not know the driver’s licence of her son, the driver, was suspended and not valid at the time she gave him permission to drive the vehicle. She testified that he was not even aware that his driving privileges were suspended and how was she to know. She testified she did not take any steps to determine that the driver was properly licensed.

12I find that the evidence establishes that the appellant’s driving privileges were suspended indefinitely on January 25, 2022.

13In my view, based on the evidence presented, the appellant took no reasonable actions to determine that the driver was properly licensed, and instead, assumed he was. She did not ask to view and examine his physical driver’s licence, and did not make any inquires of the MTO or Service Ontario. She also made no inquires of him as to the status of his driving privileges. I can not find that she exercised due diligence as she took no steps whatsoever to determine that the driver had driving privileges and was not a suspended driver prior to permitting him to drive the vehicle.

14I find that the appellant has not established that she 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.

The impoundment will not cause exceptional hardship

15I 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”).

16The 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.

17If 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.

18If 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.

19The 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).

20The Tribunal can never consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to a person.

Alternative to the impounded vehicle

21I am not persuaded that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

22The appellant testified that her mother resides with her and sometimes the driver also resides in the familial home. The appellant testified that, since the impoundment, she has been using rental vehicles to attend to her daily tasks and to attend her and her mother’s medical appointments. She testified that she and her mother have regular medical appointments. She testified that utilizing a taxi and/or Uber would have been too expensive, and thus, she has been using rental vehicles given her need for transportation. She first rented a vehicle for approximately two weeks after the impoundment. She testified that she then rented another vehicle from approximately December 28, 2025 to the date of the hearing. However, she feels uncomfortable driving rental vehicles and is experiencing financial hardship given the impoundment fees and cost of rentals.

23I acknowledge the appellant’s testimony that she has been experiencing inconvenience and financial difficulties since the impoundment of the vehicle. However, I find the appellant has not established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. In my view, her testimony clearly establishes that she has been using rental vehicles to meet her and her mother’s daily needs, including attending medical appointments and obtaining groceries, and she has access to alternative means of transportation. There is no evidence before me to indicate that any medical appointments have been missed.

24I find the appellant has not proven that there are no alternatives to the impounded vehicle available and her appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act must fail as a result.

25Since 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

26I find that:

i. the appellant has not established that she 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;

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

ORDER

27The Tribunal Orders that the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.