There are a number of reasons a person parts with his or her car. Regardless of the reason, the main concern of the seller is usually getting a good price for the car. Upon receiving the price agreed upon, the seller, eager to perform his end of the bargain, may immediately turn over the car to the buyer. As the buyer speeds off, the seller may think that’s the end of that. What he or she may not realize is that as long as the car is registered in his or her name, the seller is the owner in the eyes of the law.
Documenting the sale and ensuring compliance with the formalities of law and regulations, including having the car registered in the buyer’s name as soon as practicable, are matters to be taken seriously and, ideally, treated by the seller as important as negotiating a good price for the car. This is especially so in light of the ever-present risk of the car becoming involved in a mishap involving property damage or, worse, injury or death.
According to the judge in the case of Martin v. Zivkovic, 2010 ONSC 2427, one is presumed to be the owner of a motor vehicle if it is registered in his or her name.
The case involved an action brought by Melissa Martin for personal injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. It was alleged that the at-fault vehicle was registered to Sheila Adams and driven at the time by Sinisia Zivkovic. Melissa named Sheila and Sinisia, as well as Sheila’s insurer, TD General Insurance Company, as defendants.
In turn, TD brought a third party claim against Aviva Canada Inc., the insurer of Sheila, arguing that Aviva should respond to Melissa’s claim on behalf of Sheila and Sinisia.
In resisting TD’s claim, Aviva asserted that Sheila was no longer the owner of the vehicle, having earlier sold the same to Sinisia. But the judge did not see it that way.
Quoting the Supreme Court of Canada in Hayduk v. Pidoborozny, [1972] S.C.R. 879, the judge said “there is a logical reason why the registered owner should be treated as `owner’ . . . because the very purpose of the registration is to give notice to all users of the highway of the identity of the individual to whom they may look as owner in the event of an accident”.
The presumption that one is the owner arising from registration would not hold if there is convincing proof that the vehicle has already been sold and ownership has been transferred to another. Registration is but one of several indicators of ownership.
Aside from the registration of the vehicle in the name of Sheila, the judge was convinced the other indicators pointed to Sheila as the owner. For one, the police report named Sheila as the owner. The judge inferred from this the fact that Sinisia told the police that Sheila, and not he, was the owner. In other words, Sinisia did not acknowledge himself to be the owner of the vehicle.
There was also no document evidencing the alleged sale between Sheila and Sinisia. Such document could have been in the form of a signed agreement between them, or a receipt issued by Sheila acknowledging that she received the purchase price. None of the sort was ever presented.
Another indicator was Sheila’s non-compliance with the requirements for selling a used vehicle in Ontario. Sheila did not provide a used vehicle information package to Sinisia as required.
Sheila did not try to get her license plates back from Sinisia on the evening of the sale, offering no explanation why the plates were only returned to her five days later. On the other hand, Sinisia did not go to the Ministry of Transportation to have the ownership transferred to his name.
More telling was the fact that Sheila did not immediately advise Aviva of the sale of the vehicle to Sinisia. In fact, she only had the vehicle removed from the Aviva policy more than a month after the accident.
There being no evidence to the contrary, Sheila was still to be presumed to be the owner arising from the registration of the vehicle in her name. “Sheila is the `owner’ of the vehicle . . . and therefore the Aviva policy, issued to Sheila, will respond to (Melissa’s) damages, if any, on behalf of both Sheila and Sinisia,” the judge concluded.
TD successfully showed that it was not a necessary party since its insurance policy will not be legally called upon to answer for Melissa’s claims arising from the accident. Aviva, as insurer of the registered owner of the at-fault vehicle, was the one obliged to defend Sheila and Sinisia from the claims.