Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18166/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:

Hassan Akbar

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Gurleen Thethi

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Hassan Akbar, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Agent

HEARD By Teleconference: Monday, January 19, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Hassan Akbar, (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, December 28, 2025. At the time of the impoundment, M.C.C (the “driver”) was driving the vehicle with a suspended licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 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 under suspension.

ISSUES

3The issue in dispute is:

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.

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

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 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 rents his vehicle through Turo, an online vehicle rental platform, and, as part of that process, relies on Turo’s verification of the renters’ driver’s licence, registration information, and licence expiry before handing over the vehicle. The appellant stated that these steps were completed with respect to the booked renter, and he conducted the same steps to verify the renters’ licence. The vehicle was booked by the renter, and the appellant followed Turo’s standard process before releasing the vehicle to her. However, shortly after the rental began, the renter’s boyfriend took the keys without her permission and operated the vehicle. He was the individual driving at the time the vehicle was stopped and subsequently impounded. The appellant emphasized that this person was never intended to operate the vehicle and had not been identified or verified through Turo’s system.

10The appellant testified that they took appropriate steps to verify the booked renter’s identity and licence through Turo before releasing the vehicle. They argue that they followed all required procedures, and they had no knowledge that a third party would access the vehicle without the guest’s permission. The appellant testified that Turo has confirmed that the impound fees will be covered by either the renter or the platform, reinforcing that the incident was caused by an unauthorized user.

11The respondent argues that the due diligence ground is not intended to apply in circumstances where an approved or permitted driver subsequently allows, or is unable to prevent, another person from driving the vehicle. Once the vehicle is released to the renter, the owner cannot reasonably prevent unauthorized third‑party use.

12I accept that the appellant followed Turo’s standard verification steps with respect to the booked renter. However, the appellant confirmed on cross‑examination that they never saw the licence of the individual who was actually driving at the time of the impoundment, and no steps were taken to verify that person’s authority or fitness to drive. The evidence establishes that the actual driver was an unverified third party whose identity and licence status were unknown to the appellant.

13I agree with the respondent that these circumstances do not meet the statutory test for due diligence. The steps taken by the appellant were limited to the intended renter and did not extend to the person who ultimately operated the vehicle. I find that reliance on a platform’s screening process alone is insufficient where the actual driver is someone entirely different and unverified.

14Accordingly, I 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 under suspension.

Conclusion

15I 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 under suspension.

ORDER

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

Released: February 4, 2026

__________________

Gurleen Thethi

Adjudicator