The registered owner of a motor vehicle brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the action against him arising from a pedestrian collision caused by his son while driving the vehicle.
The owner argued that his son operated the vehicle without his consent because the son only held a G1 licence and had been expressly prohibited from driving unaccompanied.
The court considered s. 192 of the Highway Traffic Act and the jurisprudence confirming that owner liability turns on consent to possession, not consent to operation.
Evidence showed the son had his own set of keys, unrestricted access to the vehicle on the family property, and that the vehicle had been purchased for his eventual ownership and use.
The court held that the owner failed to establish that the vehicle was in the son’s possession without consent and that there was at least a genuine issue requiring a trial.
