Vehicle registration gave rise to a rebuttable presumption of ownership
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has clarified the indicia of vehicle ownership in a recent motor vehicle accident case.
In Dyck v. Kent & Essex Mutual Insurance Company et al., 2023 ONSC 3725, Gurdarshan Dhillon was driving a transport truck that rear-ended Alison Dyck's vehicle. Orchid Leasing Corporation was the registered owner of the tractor portion of the transport truck, while IWD Transport Inc., a freight company, was the registered owner of the trailer portion. At the time of the accident, Dhillon was hauling the trailer for IWD and leased the tractor from Orchid through a lease agreement. The agreement required Dhillon to keep the tractor in good working order and perform all the necessary maintenance and repairs.
The lease agreement also required the lessee, Dhillon, to obtain insurance. If the lessee failed to provide proof of insurance, Orchid had the right to obtain Orchid's insurance at the lessee's expense.
Dhillon obtained the license plates for the tractor and made every payment on the lease and the final payment to exercise an option to purchase under the agreement.
Following the accident, Dhillon was charged and convicted of driving a motor vehicle without insurance and a permit. Since Dhillon appeared uninsured at the time of the accident, Alison Dyck sued her insurer, Kent & Essex, under the family protection coverage, and she sought uninsured motorist coverage for her damages.
Kent & Essex sought damages from Orchid through a cross-claim for what it alleged was a breach of covenant by Orchid to insure Dhillon. Orchid sought an order dismissing Dyck's claim and Kent & Essex's cross-claim, which were both premised on the contention that Orchid was the legal owner of the tractor at the time of the accident.
Kent & Essex also asserted that Orchid agreed to insure the tractor. On the other hand, Orchid argued that on a plain reading of the evidence, it made no such agreement. The court agreed with Orchid.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice noted that the Highway Traffic Act provides that the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for loss or damage sustained because of negligence in the operation of that vehicle. Orchid was registered with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation as the tractor's owner at the time of the accident. The court said that the registration gave rise to a rebuttable presumption of ownership.
The court emphasized that the registration of ownership of a motor vehicle is to be treated as proof of ownership unless and until the contrary can be shown.
The court found that Orchid agreed to sell the tractor to Dhillon who paid the purchase price in full. Orchid gave the necessary paperwork to Dhillon to transfer the ownership, including the bill of sale. Orchid exercised no possession or control of the vehicle after Dhillon received the bill of sale. The court found no evidence that Orchid retained keys to the vehicle. Furthermore, Orchid was not in a position to consent or withhold consent to the operation of the vehicle after the transfer of ownership.
Accordingly, the court concluded that by the time of the accident, there was no indication of ownership of the truck by Orchid. Based on all the evidence, the court found that Orchid had successfully rebutted the presumption of ownership of the tractor.
