Burke v. Wadden, 2024 NSSC 49
Reading Time: 4.5 minutes (approx.)
By: Alexandre Doucet (Articled Clerk)
The Plaintiff, Devon Burke, was involved in a single-vehicle accident as a passenger in a vehicle driven by Charles Wadden which left him severely injured. Mr. Wadden had purchased the vehicle a few months before the accident from All-Star Auto, but had not registered a change of ownership, obtained a permit for the car, attached a valid license plate to the vehicle, or secured insurance; in addition, he did not have a valid driver’s license. Mr. Wadden and All-Star Auto are both Defendants in this action.
On behalf of Mr. Waddell, a motion was brought before the court for a determination on the question of what an ‘owner’ is under the Insurance Act/Motor Vehicle Act when a vehicle is sold and transferred? [para 2]. The definition of a vehicle owner in the Insurance Act relies on the Motor Vehicle Act’s definition, which reads:
Section 2A of the Motor Vehicle Act defines “owner” and reads as follows:
Owner of vehicle
2A (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), in this Act, “owner” of a vehicle means
(a) where a permit is issued for the vehicle, the person who holds the permit for the vehicle; or
(b) where no permit is issued for the vehicle, the person who holds the certificate of registration for the vehicle.
[…]
(3) In this Act, where no permit and no certificate of registration have been issued for a vehicle or for the purpose of obtaining a certificate of registration for a vehicle, the owner of the vehicle is any person who, alone or jointly with one or more others, has the right to transfer property in the vehicle.
In this case, both parties agreed that there was no valid permit.
Mr. Waddell’s position was that the Registry of Motor Vehicles (the “Registry”) identified All-Star Auto as the owner, making it the “holder” of the certificate and therefore the registered owner; in other words, until the purchaser secures a new certificate of registration, the seller is the “holder” of the certificate and accordingly the owner of the vehicle. All-Star Auto submitted that the wording of s.2A(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act confirms that ownership transfers when the buyer gives the seller value (typically money) in exchange for the vehicle and leaves with the vehicle and the certificate of registration, which is a physical document. It also pointed out that there is often a delay between the transfer and the Registry’s records being updated to reflect the same, during which time the “holder” of the certificate of registration is the buyer.
The court then examined the wording on the certificate of registration, which reads as follows:
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROOF OF YOUR OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE. KEEP IT IN A SAFE PLACE, NOT WITH YOUR LICENCE OR REGISTRATION OR IN YOUR CAR. TO DISPOSE OF YOUR VEHICLE, COMPLETE THE TRANSFER SECTION ON THE REVERSE AND GIVE THE CERTIFICATE TO THE NEW OWNER.
The court agreed that the wording used on the certificate was clear support for All-Star Auto’s position. It further examined section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which sets out the process for vehicle transfers, and the Registry’s website which states that “when an owner signs their Certificate of Registration over to someone else […] the ownership of the vehicle is immediately transferred to that person” [original emphasis]. The court concluded that when ownership of a vehicle is transferred and there is no permit, it is the person who holds the physical, albeit suspended, certificate of registration who is the owner of a vehicle, regardless of whether the Registry has been notified of the transfer.
Link: https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/2024/2024nssc49/2024nssc49.html
