COURT FILE NO.: 654/04

DATE: 20051125

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

LANE, THEN AND PARDU JJ.

B E T W E E N:

MOHINDER SINGH RAINAL

Applicant

- and -

CITY OF TORONTO LICENSING COMMISSION, LICENSING TRIBUNAL

Respondents

In Person

Rosanne Giulietti, for the City of Toronto

HEARD: November 25, 2005

lane J.: (Orally)

1Mohinder Singh Rainal, the applicant, brings this application for judicial review to set aside the decision of the Toronto Licensing Tribunal in which it suspended the applicant’s taxicab driver’s licence for a period of thirty days after finding that he had breached the municipal code in a number of respects. The suspension has already been served.

2At the opening of the hearing, we declined to permit Mr. Rainal to be represented by a paralegal and invited him to seek an adjournment so that he could seek the services of an interpreter. After consideration, he decided to continue with the proceeding representing himself.

3The applicant is a taxi driver licensed by the city of Toronto. In September, 2004, he was summoned to appear before the Tribunal to determine if his licence should be suspended or revoked or placed under conditions on the basis that he was not carrying on his business in accordance with the law.

4The hearing was held on November 18th, 2004 from 9:00 a.m. to early afternoon. The applicant was represented by counsel and the evidence was led as to three occurrences.

5The first incident was one where the applicant failed to return a taxicab plate when he was required to do so and when issued with a Notice of Violation requiring the return of the plate, he did not comply.

6The second incident was one where the applicant was operating his taxicab in violation of the code and obstructed an inspection by a municipal standards officer.

7The third incident was one where the applicant was unable to produce a number of documents which he, as a taxicab licence holder was required to be able to produce. These included a photograph, his licence, a trip sheet and in addition he was charged with obstructing the inspection and parking otherwise than in a designated cab stand.

8At the hearing, the Tribunal heard evidence from the municipal standards officers who were involved in these incidents. The applicant testified and called witnesses and his counsel cross-examined the witnesses for the city. At the end of the day the Tribunal found that the applicant had breached the code with respect to the first and third incidents but acquitted him with respect to the second incident. After hearing submissions as to penalty, the Tribunal imposed a thirty day suspension of his taxicab driver’s licence and a two year probation period which would carry over to a plate called an Ambassador plate which he was expected to have issued to him. At the request of his counsel, the Tribunal directed that the suspension would not begin until after the Christmas season of 2004, a decision of some benefit to the applicant.

9Mr. Rainal appeared before us today and sees in all of these developments a conspiracy by employees of the city to harass him, arising out of previous dealings that he and his wife have had with the licensing authorities. He asked us for an order directing the city officials not to continue to harass him. This relief is beyond our present jurisdiction on this proceeding which is limited to reviewing the conduct of the Tribunal and the fairness with which it proceeded. Whatever may be the attitude of city employees towards him, in our view, the proceedings before the Tribunal were conducted fairly and in accordance with natural justice. There was evidence to support their findings and the penalty was a reasonable one and as I have noted was postponed past the Christmas season in order to benefit the applicant.

10Having considered the entire matter, we can see no basis for interfering with the decisions reached by the Tribunal and for that reason this application for judicial review is dismissed.

11The city has presented a cost outline in the amount of $2,000.00 in fees, estimated at ten hours at $200.00 per hour and $500.00 for counsel fee today. Ms. Giulietti has very candidly indicated that something less than that might well be appropriate and we agree. We have decided that there should be some costs but that they should be relatively modest and we fix them at $500.00.

___________________________

LANE J.

___________________________

THEN J.

___________________________

PARDU J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 25, 2005

Date of Release: December 1, 2005

COURT FILE NO.: 654/04

DATE: 20051125

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

LANE, THEN AND PARDU JJ.

B E T W E E N:

MOHINDER SINGH RAINAL

Applicant

- and -