Auger v. Driver Control Board (Alta.), 2002 ABQB 867

• Judge: Marceau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 13, 2002
• Citations: 2002 ABQB 867;(2002), 324 A.R. 153 (QB)

Auger v. Driver Control Bd. (2002), 324 A.R. 153 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. OC.045

Her Majesty The Queen in the name of the Alberta Driver Control Board (respondent) v. Sarah Lynn Auger (appellant)

(0203 09906; 2002 ABQB 867)

Indexed As: Auger v. Driver Control Board (Alta.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Marceau, J.

October 1, 2002.

Summary:

A vehicle owner sought judicial review of a Driver Control Board decision not to revoke the seizure and impoundment of her vehicle which had been seized for 30 days under s. 112 of the Motor Vehicle Administration Act. The vehicle was seized because it was being driven by the owner's common law spouse, whose licence was suspended at the time.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and quashed the decision.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 3346

Regulation of vehicles and traffic - Vehicles - Seizure of - Return of seized vehicle - Auger was the registered owner of a motor vehicle that was seized and impounded for 30 days under s. 112 of the Motor Vehicle Administration Act where it was being driven by her common law spouse, whose driver's licence had been suspended - Auger applied under s. 23.2 of the Act for the Driver Control Board to review and revoke the seizure - Section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Seizure and Immobilization Regulation permitted such application where, inter alia, Auger "could not

reasonably have known" of the licence suspension - Auger was in a trusting relationship - When she asked the spouse if he was licensed, he responded yes - Auger did not demand that he produce his licence for her inspection - The Board held that s. 6 required, at a minimum, that Auger demand that her spouse produce his licence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the standard of review of the Board's decision was correctness - The Board was incorrect - In a trusting relationship, absent suspicious circumstances leading a reasonable person to demand production, requiring production of a licence was too high a standard.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 3347

Regulation of vehicles and traffic - Vehicles - Seizure of - Appeals and judicial review - [See Motor Vehicles - Topic 3346 ].

Cases Noticed:

Driver Control Board (Alta.) v. Lupien (2001), 295 A.R. 291; 93 Alta. L.R.(3d) 91 (Q.B.), agreed with [para. 10].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Motor Vehicle Administration Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-23, sect. 23.2, sect. 112 [para. 4].

Motor Vehicle Administration Act Regulations (Alta.), Motor Vehicle Seizure and Immobilization Regulation, Reg. 395/91, sect. 6, sect. 8 [para. 4].

Motor Vehicle Seizure and Immobilization Regulation - see Motor Vehicle Administration Act Regulations (Alta.).

Counsel:

Sean McDonough and Bonnie Commandeur (Alberta Justice), for the respondent;

Ronald A. Morin, for the appellant.

This application was heard on September 13, 2002, before Marceau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on October 1, 2002.