Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis
DATE: 2014-09-30
FILE: 7912/GAR
CASE NAME: 7912 v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Appeal From a Notice of Proposal of The Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards under Subparagraphs 91(8)(a),(b),(d) and (e) and Subsection 93(a)(b) and (c) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 to Revoke a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station Licence and to Revoke a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station Mechanic’s Registration
Pro Street Auto Services & Sales Inc. and Joe Ramono Appellants
-and-
Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Laurie Sanford, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellants: W. Glen Orr, Q.C., Counsel
For the Respondent: Patrick S. Moore, Counsel Byron Marrello, Counsel Michael Dunn, Counsel
Heard in Toronto: September 3, 4 & 5, 2014
DECISON AND REASONS
The Appellants, Pro Street Auto Services & Sales (“Pro Street Auto”) and Mr. Joe Ramono have required a hearing by the Tribunal under subsection 95(2) of the Highway Traffic Act R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) to appeal a proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards (the “Director”) to revoke the motor vehicle inspection station licence of Pro Street Auto and to revoke the registration of Mr. Ramono as a motor vehicle inspection mechanic.
Pro Street Auto had a valid licence at the time of the Director’s proposal and at the time Pro Street Auto required a hearing. Likewise, Mr. Ramono’s registration was current both at the time of the Director’s proposal and when Mr. Ramono required a hearing. During the hearing the Director advised and the Appellants agreed that the licence of Pro Street Auto had not been renewed by December 31, 2013 as required under the Act. Thus, the licence of Pro Street Auto has lapsed. Under subsection 92(3), the registration of Mr. Ramono expired with the licence of Pro Street Auto.
The Director brought a motion seeking a declaration that the matter was at an end. At the outset of the hearing of the motion, Mr. Moore, Counsel for the Director, served notice that the Director was withdrawing his Notice of Proposal. Given the withdrawal of both the proposal and the allegations contained in it, Mr. Moore submitted, the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Mr. Orr, counsel for the Appellants, submitted that the Director does not have the jurisdiction to withdraw his Notice of Proposal now that the hearing has been validly required under the Act and has commenced. Mr. Orr noted that nowhere in the Act is there an express right on the part of the Director to withdraw notices of proposal once issued.
The first issue to be decided is whether the Director has the authority to withdraw a proposal and whether there are any limits to that authority. Inherent in the jurisdiction of the Director to issue a Notice of Proposal is the authority to withdraw the Notice. However, once a hearing has been properly required under the Act, the right of the Director to withdraw is not untrammelled. It is subject to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, including the Tribunal’s authority to control its processes. The Tribunal should accept the Director’s withdrawal only if satisfied that accepting it will not result in an abuse of process or a manifest violation of the principles of natural justice.
In this case, Mr. Orr stopped short of asserting that the Director’s action in withdrawing the Proposal was an abuse of process but he did submit that to require the Appellants to re-apply for licencing and registration, face a refusal and then begin the appeal again is unfair. Mr. Orr submits that the Director ought to be obliged to continue with the hearing. As authority for this submission, Mr. Orr cited the 2001 decision of the Divisional Court in the case of Ontario (Registrar of Real Estate and Business Brokers) v Ontario (Licence Appeal Tribunal) [2001] O.J. No. 883. In that case, the Registrar of Real Estate and Business Brokers served Ms. Reid with a Notice of Proposal under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act (“REBBA”) proposing to revoke her registration. Ms. Reid requested a hearing by the Tribunal but before the hearing commenced, Ms. Reid’s registration expired as a result of her failure to pay insurance premiums. The Divisional Court held:
However, in our view, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to proceed with a hearing would not be ousted by the circumstance that the registration of Ms. Reid as a salesperson under REBBA expired after service of the notice of proposal by the Registrar and her notice requiring a hearing before the Tribunal but before the hearing itself. If the Registrar wishes to proceed against her with the serious allegations set out in the notice, then Ms. Reid is entitled to the hearing she has requested to respond to them.
Mr. Orr submits that the Reid case is on all fours with the present one. Mr. Moore submits that the case is distinguishable. He submits that in this case, the Director does not propose to proceed against the Appellants; in fact, the Director has withdrawn his allegations.
In the Reid case, it appears that the Registrar had some colour of right to proceed with allegations in support of revocation against Ms. Reid despite the fact that she was no longer a registrant under REBBA. In the present case, it is arguable that the Director has lost his jurisdiction to propose a revocation as the Appellants are no longer either licensee or registrant. Moreover, in the present case the Director has withdrawn not only his revocation proposal but the allegations on which it was based. The cases are distinguishable on these grounds.
Mr. Orr submits that the Tribunal, if it chooses not to proceed in accordance with the decision in the Reid case, ought to convert this hearing into a hearing on the anticipated refusal by the Director to licence and register the Appellants, possibly with a short adjournment to permit the Appellants to re-apply. Mr. Moore notes that the grounds for accepting or refusing an application for a licence or registration under the Act are different from those governing the revocation of an existing licence or registration. There are additional grounds available to the Director to refuse to issue a licence. Mr. Moore submits that in this case, given the current bail conditions imposed on Mr. Ramono in another proceeding which prohibit him from working as a motor vehicle inspection mechanic, it may be some time before Mr. Ramono and Pro Street Auto are in a position to re-apply. At that time, the Appellants’ situations may have changed and the Director may choose to consider other factors in deciding whether to accept or refuse their applications.
The Tribunal accepts Mr. Moore’s submissions. It is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to convert this hearing into a hearing on a hypothetical refusal of a possible future application for registration or licencing under the Act. The parties to such a future matter may be different from the parties here; the issues may have changed; the application may be accepted and, if refused, the grounds for refusal of a licence or registration may well be different from those before the Tribunal in this case. The Tribunal must deal with the Notice of Proposal before it and the requirement for a hearing that flowed from that Notice of Proposal.
There is no evidence of either an abuse of process or a denial of natural justice in the actions of the Director in withdrawing his proposal. On the contrary, in the absence of a valid licence and registration there is nothing on which the Tribunal may proceed. There is no longer an issue to be decided and any decision reached by the Tribunal would be meaningless. Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts the Director’s withdrawal of the Notice of Proposal. It follows from that acceptance that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is at an end. Having decided this, it is not necessary to consider the alternate submissions advanced by Counsel for the Director.
It remains for the Tribunal to acknowledge, with gratitude, the assistance it received from Counsel on issues of law.
The Tribunal orders and stipulates that this matter is at an end.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Laurie Sanford, Vice-Chair
RELEASED: September 30, 2014