CITATION: Anpro Excavating v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2010 ONSC 5651
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 484/10
DATE: 20101013
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HERMAN J.
BETWEEN:
ANPRO EXCAVATING AND GRADING LTD.
Appellant
– and –
REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Respondent
Carole McAfee Wallace, for the Appellant
Douglas W. Lee, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: October 13, 2010
herman j. (ORALLY)
[1] The appellant seeks an order staying the decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal. The Registrar has issued a Suspension & Seizure Order that will come into effect on October 15, 2010 unless the stay is granted. The Order is a 14 day suspension.
[2] The appellant has appealed the decision of the Tribunal and now seeks a stay. In order to obtain a stay, the appellant has to meet the three part test in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 (QL).
[3] The first part of that test is there is a serious issue to be decided on the appeal. The appellant argues that the Tribunal incorrectly focused on past events instead of considering the appellant’s current safety performance. Therefore, the Tribunal failed to consider, as it was required to do, whether the appellant would drive safely in the future.
[4] The threshold for determining whether there is a serious issue to be decided is low and has, in my opinion, been met in this case.
[5] The second part of the test is irreparable harm. The appellant has more than twenty contracts with developers. If a stay is not granted, it will not be able to fulfill its contractual obligations. It will also suffer harm to its reputation. I accept that this is irreparable harm.
[6] The third part of the test is balance of convenience. The respondent argues that the balance of convenience favours the Ministry. Although there is no evidence that the appellant is currently engaging in unsafe practices, the Ministry argues that a failure to impose the suspension now is a signal to the public that the Ministry is unable to exercise its responsibilities to mandate. This order was originally issued in March 2010. I am not satisfied that a further delay pending appeal will make a significant difference to the Ministry and its mandate. On the other hand, there could be considerable harm to the appellant. I note, as well, that if a stay is not granted, the appellant will have served a suspension that may ultimately be set aside on appeal.
[7] In these circumstances, it is my opinion that the balance of convenience is in favour of granting a stay and it is so ordered.
COSTS
[8] The parties have agreed that the successful party on this motion will be awarded $2,000, costs inclusive of tax and disbursements. That, in my opinion, is reasonable and is so ordered. With respect to perfecting the appeal, the appellant will request transcripts forthwith and will perfect the appeal within 60 days of receiving the transcripts.
HERMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 13, 2010
Date of Release: October 19, 2010
CITATION: Anpro Excavating v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2010 ONSC 5651
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 484/10
DATE: 20101013
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HERMAN J.
BETWEEN:
ANPRO EXCAVATING AND GRADING LTD.
Appellant
– and –
REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HERMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 13, 2010
Date of Release: October 19, 2010