Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
2015-09-18
FILE:
9449/CVOR
CASE NAME:
9449 v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Appeal under section 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an Order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles pursuant to section 47(1) - to Cancel the Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration Certificate and to Seize the Plate Portion of all Permits Issued
Dash Transport Logistics Inc.
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Geneviève Blais, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Anthony Debly, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Ryan DeFaria, Counsel
Heard in Windsor:
August 18 and 19, 2015
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
The Appellant appeals to this Tribunal under section 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from an Order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) issued on February 12, 2015, pursuant to section 47(1) to cancel a Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration (“CVOR”) certificate and to seize the plate portion of all permits issued.
BACKGROUND
The Appellant, Dash Transport Logistics Inc. (“Dash Transport”) was issued CVOR certificate 172-830-860 on February 10, 2012. The operator is domiciled in Michigan but the operations are primarily in Ontario. The corporate officer, Lutfi Kornes, is an Ontario resident and has suffered from an illness for the past eighteen months and is not on site to manage operations. The operations manager is Ali Cevirme who previously held a CVOR certificate as owner and president of 2055289 Ontario Inc., operating under the name of Blue Streak Logistics (“Blue Streak”) from November 16, 2006 to August 29, 2011, when it was cancelled. While operator of Blue Streak, Mr. Cevirme was also president of Quick Service Logistics LLC (“Quick Service”), an affiliated entity, which was twice refused a CVOR certificate in 2010 and 2011. Despite the refusals, Mr. Cevirme continued to operate Quick Service without a CVOR certificate.
The basis for the Registrar’s Cancellation and Seizure Order issued on February 12, 2015, against Dash Transport is the safety record of the company. As the operator of Dash Transport is in poor health and absent, Mr. Cevirme is the controlling mind of the day to day operations of the company. The Registrar’s position is that Mr. Cevirme should not be managing the business given his poor safety performance rating throughout his tenure as a CVOR operator.
THE EVIDENCE
The Registrar’s Evidence
The Registrar called one witness, David Mercanti, who is a Carrier Safety Rating Administrator with the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”). He monitors the safety records of CVOR holders, conducts interviews with certificate holders to address safety records and prepares action plans and recommendations for sanctions for the consideration of the Registrar.
Mr. Mercanti explained the responsibilities of a CVOR certificate holder which are set out in the Public Guidelines issued by the MTO (Exhibit 3, Tab 22). The CVOR system is designed to track the on-road performance of Ontario based carriers and identify those carriers that may present a safety risk. The CVOR system tracks three parameters that have been found to be indicia of safe operation: collisions, convictions and inspections by an officer of the MTO.
A CVOR holder notifies the MTO on registration and thereafter, at least annually, of its fleet size and kilometric travel in Ontario. Based on these two factors, it is assigned a maximum number of points, referred to as its Violation Rate (“V.R.”).
The Registrar tracks each CVOR holder’s performance by measuring its actual points against the assigned maximum and expressing it as a percentage of the V.R. To determine a carrier’s V.R., each parameter is tracked separately and then weighted to give an overall number. The tracking system contemplates intervention by the Registrar at certain predetermined levels. At a 35% V.R., a carrier receives a warning letter advising it that its record is deteriorating and advising it to make adjustments to improve. At a 50% V.R., the Registrar may initiate a facility audit. A carrier may be called for an interview at 80% and the Registrar will consider sanctions when a carrier reaches 100%. When sanctions, which may range from a suspension to a cancellation, are recommended, the carrier is invited to a “Show Cause” meeting with the Deputy Registrar. The intervention is to ensure carrier compliance and 80% of companies improve following such intervention. As of July 1, 2014, 95.7% of carriers operate under a 35% V.R.; only 0.1% are over 85% and 0.1% exceed 100%. Of the 53,538 CVOR certificate holders in Ontario, only 65 exceed a 100% V.R.
Mr. Mercanti reviewed the records of the Appellant and the previous records of Blue Streak and of Quick Service, formerly owned and operated by Ali Cevirme. He referred to documentation as outlined in the Registrar’s Book of Documents (Exhibit 3).
Dash Transport
Dash Transport was issued a CVOR certificate on February 10, 2012. At the time, Mr. Lutfi Kornes was listed as the corporate officer. Mr. Cevirme was not identified on the application as the operations manager.
Dash Transport’s safety record began to deteriorate within 18 months of the issuance of the CVOR. On August 12, 2013, a warning letter was issued and on June 3, 2014 a conditional safety rating was assigned. The operator had a V.R. of 100.82%.
On September 24, 2014, a letter was sent to Dash Transport requesting an interview on October 20, 2014, to discuss the safety record. Neither the operator nor Mr. Cevirme attended the scheduled interview or contacted Mr. Mercanti.
On October 23, 2014, a Notice of Cancellation and Seizure was issued which proposed cancellation of the CVOR certificate issued to Dash Transport. A Show Cause meeting was held on January 13, 2015. In attendance were Mr. Cevirme, accompanied by the company’s safety manager/mechanic, G.T., and Mr. Debly, Counsel for Dash Transport.
The performance data from September 22, 2012 to September 21, 2014 showed the company had an overall V.R. of 100.82%. The company had an overall out of service rate of 57.69%, with a driver out of service rate of 15.38% and a vehicle out of service rate of 50.0%. The company had a fleet size of five commercial motor vehicles traveling 24,583 kilometres per month. The company had multiple convictions related to mechanical fitness and trip inspection related issues. As of October 2014, the company had $1521.00 in outstanding fines. The V.R. of 100.82% placed the company in the 0.1% range.
Mr. Mercanti stated that Mr. Cevirme’s relationship with Dash Transport was revealed at the Show Cause meeting on January 13, 2015. The Registrar’s concern was Mr. Cevirme’s history as the corporate officer of Blue Streak whose CVOR was cancelled due to safety related events, and the applications by Quick Service for a CVOR certificate which were refused on two occasions.
Mr. Mercanti highlighted information utilized in the Safety Record Review of October 2014 and the calculation of the V.R. of 100.82% for Dash Transport. In summary, the evidence in Exhibit 3 indicates the following:
From December 2, 2012 to December 29, 2014, numerous inspections reports identified defects and violations involving lighting system, brakes, tire conditions, seatbelts (failed to wear), annual inspections (expired), hours of service logs, trip inspection logs, insurance (no certificate), drivers’ licences (improper) and registration (no permit).
On February 5, 2013, a wheel separation occurred on Highway 401 where the plates were not authorized for the vehicle and the brake adjustment violations rendered the vehicle unfit (Exhibit 3, Tab 4).
On eight of the inspection reports, Mr. Cevirme was the driver of the vehicle. A report in July 2013 and on December 29, 2014, indicated that the vehicles failed an inspection and an out-of-service prohibition was issued. A report dated March 6, 2014, noted that the CVOR expired on February 10, 2014 and the insurance certificate card was expired.
At the Show Cause meeting of January 13, 2015, Dash Transport submitted an action plan with proposed improvements by the operator. The plan included hiring a safety consultant to assist the company in developing maintenance and training practices and paying the outstanding fines.
On April 1, 2015, Mr. Mercanti prepared a second CVOR abstract for Dash Transport with performance data from March 3, 2013 to March 2, 2015. The data showed an increase in the company’s V.R. to 120.9%, with an out of service rate of 68%, with a driver out of service rate of 20% and a vehicle out of service rate of 56%. There were no collisions assigned points during this period but there were 25 convictions, 24 of which were assigned points and 27 inspections, with 18 out of service findings (Exhibit 3, Tab 3).
Mr. Mercanti reviewed the Driver Record profile associated with Mr. Cevirme (Exhibit 3, Tab 6) from May 26, 1997 to December 29, 2014. It showed 28 records for CVOR violations. Several of the convictions on the record occurred when he was a driver for Dash Transport and previously when he was a driver for Blue Streak.
Mr. Cevirme, Blue Streak and Quick Service
Mr. Mercanti summarized the safety record of Blue Streak and Quick Service previously owned and operated by Mr. Cevirme (Exhibit 3, Tabs 10-17).
On November 16, 2006, a CVOR certificate was issued to Blue Streak.
On January 20, 2009, a warning letter was issued; the V.R. had reached 139.9%.
On August 4, 2009, a conditional safety rating was assigned.
In December 2009, a second analysis of the record after the warning letter resulted in a V.R. of 105.36%.
On February 18, 2010, at a Show Cause meeting, the Registrar identified a high number of defects found on vehicles, log book violations throughout the entire history of the CVOR record and late implementation of a policy to obtain driver’s abstracts regularly. In a nine month period, nine of twelve inspections had out of service defects. Mr. Cevirme acknowledged the poor performance of the company and he committed to produce a safety plan. He undertook to aggressively monitor compliance of the drivers and improve the safety record of the company.
On March 17, 2010, the Registrar issued a Suspension and Seizure Order to suspend the CVOR of Blue Streak for 28 days. In June, 2010, an appeal of the Order to this Tribunal was withdrawn as Blue Streak agreed to a suspension and seizure for a period of 21 days from July 20 to August 10, 2010.
On July 23, 2010, the Registrar received an application for a CVOR certificate from Quick Service. The application identified Mr. Cevirme as president and the company was based in Michigan.
On August 17, 2010, the Registrar issued a Notice of Refusal to Issue a CVOR certificate to Quick Service on the basis that Mr. Cevirme was the corporate officer of Blue Streak, a company recently sanctioned, with a V.R. of 106% and a conditional safety rating.
On September 15, 2010, in submissions to the Registrar, Quick Service, under a new general manager, R.V., pleaded for an opportunity to prove it could operate under the laws of Ontario. A compliance plan consisting of new hiring practices, monthly safety meetings, training by a consultant and dismissal of drivers with poor records was proposed. Quick Service undertook to have Mr. Cevirme cease operating Blue Streak, if the Registrar granted Quick Service a CVOR certificate.
On September 24, 2010, the Registrar refused to issue a CVOR to Quick Service on the basis that it would not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely and in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety.
On December 14, 2010, the Registrar received a second CVOR application from Quick Service. The application indicated the company had been purchased on December 13, 2010, and C.S. was the new corporate officer.
On February 2, 2011, the Registrar held a meeting with Quick Service. The new owner, C.S., attended the meeting and advised that he had purchased the company from Mr. Cevirme for $15,000.00 as it “was a good deal”. He stated that Mr. Cevirme was no longer connected with the company and he was unaware of Mr. Cevirme’s current employment. The Registrar found C.S. to be vague in his responses to questions and he admitted that he was new to the trucking industry. Prior to ending the meeting, C.S. provided the Registrar with a release agreement made between himself and Mr. Cevirme which stated that Mr. Cevirme would forgive the $15,000.00 purchase price, if a CVOR certificate was not obtained.
On February 14, 2011, the Registrar issued a second Refusal to Issue a CVOR to Quick Service. The operator filed an appeal of the Order with this Tribunal, which was later withdrawn.
In July, 2011, Blue Streak came to MTO’s attention as a result of unpaid fines owing in the amount of $10,270.00. Performance data from June 27, 2009 to June 26, 2011 showed an overall V.R. of 112.38%. Although the company showed no activity since serving the 21 day suspension in July, 2010, the affiliated entity, Quick Service, was operating shortly after the start of the suspension and continued to operate without a valid CVOR certificate. Inspections indicated that Quick Service operated in Ontario with U.S. plated vehicles and trailer plates registered under Blue Streak, whose CVOR was expired.
On August 11, 2011, a Show Cause meeting was held with Mr. Cevirme to provide him the opportunity to present information relevant to the Registrar’s proposal for a cancellation of Blue Streak’s CVOR certificate. Mr. Cevirme told the Registrar the company was shut down and all of his equipment was sold to Quick Service operating in Michigan. Mr. Cevirme stated he could not pay the outstanding fines of over $10,000.00 associated with Blue Streak as he did not have a job. He needed more time to pay off the fines. Mr. Cevirme was advised by the Registrar that he would have to pay off the fines before the Registrar would consider renewing the CVOR.
On August 29, 2011, the Registrar issued a Cancellation and Seizure Order against all the commercial vehicles and trailers registered in the names of Blue Streak and Quick Service on the basis of the safety record, failure to pay outstanding fines and concern for highway safety.
On cross-examination, Mr. Mercanti acknowledged that although many companies generally improve with interventions and experience with the regulations, this was not the case with Dash Transport. He disagreed with Mr. Debly’s suggestion that the rolling calculation of performance data used by MTO can be misleading and look more damaging due to the overlap of some events. He further disagreed with the allegation that reports of positive inspections are not always completed and therefore can skew the calculation of a V.R. Mr. Mercanti indicated that positive inspections do not significantly change an overall safety violation rate.
Mr. Mercanti reiterated that the CVOR program has more success with the intervention process where companies accept direction and solutions to safety problems. The warning letters sent by MTO have proven to be effective. He expressed concern that neither the operator Mr. Kornes nor Mr. Cevirme contacted MTO concerning the October 2014 scheduled interview. Mr. Cevirme’s claim that he never received the letter and that he was unaware of the interview is not credible when the Registrar has two confirmed delivery receipts of the letter to the operator.
In concluding remarks during cross-examination, Mr. Mercanti stated that Mr. Cevirme has a poor track record with MTO. Three companies under his ownership, or his leadership, were given an opportunity to comply and improve safety records. All three have failed. When asked by Mr. Debly if companies with such track records as Dash Transport can eventually improve, Mr. Mercanti stated that there are instances of some companies who become more compliant.
The Appellant’s Evidence
Ali Cevirme testified on behalf of the Appellant. He stated that Mr. Lutfi Kornes, the owner of Dash Transport, is a friend of his from the trucking industry. Mr. Cevirme described himself as the company’s operations manager and he is “trying to help the company”.
He admitted that the company’s V.R. is not good and “many mistakes have occurred in the past”. He now realizes that he cannot manage the company on his own. Mr. Kornes has agreed to an action plan, which included hiring Mr. Phillip Daoust as a safety consultant and Mr. Debly as counsel to implement changes. The outstanding fines against Dash Transport were recently paid.
Although Dash Transport has no written policies, Mr. Cevirme indicated that the maintenance of the trucks and trailers is performed by a dealership generally every three months or when the drivers report defects or problems. He testified that the vehicle involved in the wheel separation incident was serviced one month prior to the incident. He holds the dealership company responsible for faulty servicing.
Mr. Cevirme stated that he does not dispute the past issues with Blue Streak and Quick Service. He attributes his poor safety record to not fully understanding the rules due to a language issue and he “tried his best to operate the companies”. He accepted that the proposed action plans to improve the safety ratings in the past failed. He feels that the failures resulted from trying to solve everything himself and hiring an unqualified safety consultant. He has been driving trucks all his life, but he learned in a different country and culture. He stated that he is not solely responsible for the outstanding fines in excess of $10,000 against Blue Streak. He claimed that other persons involved with the company will not pay their share. Accordingly, he has done nothing to resolve the debt which has been outstanding since August, 2011.
Mr. Cevirme agreed that the practices of Dash Transport need to change if the company wishes to stay in business. He is willing to work with MTO and the safety consultant. He has the full support of the owner. The safety consultant is in the early stages of providing training with him and two other drivers, and he is confident that the company’s safety record will improve.
In cross-examination, Mr. Cevirme confirmed that since 2012, he has been the operations manager at Dash Transport. He is also a part time driver and sees himself as the boss to two other drivers. One driver, T.Q., previously worked for Blue Streak. His Driver Record has 27 records for CVOR violations listed from November 7, 2002 to October 3, 2014.
Mr. Cevirme was asked why, as president and owner of Blue Streak, he is unwilling to accept responsibility for the outstanding fines. He responded by saying “There were other unofficial partners involved with the company”. He stated that there is little he can do and if he cannot work for Dash Transport, he will “quit and work for someone else”.
With respect to the Notice of Cancellation and Seizure issued to Dash Transport on October 23, 2014, Mr. DeFaria, Counsel for the Registrar asked Mr. Cevirme if he recalled seeing this document previously. Mr. Cevirme replied “No, it was just in the office and I did not look at it”. He could not remember when he later saw the document, but at some point he took the Notice of Cancellation and Seizure to Mr. Debly, his counsel, to handle the matter.
Mr. Cevirme was asked about his history of violations as a driver and how he could effectively be a good example for the other drivers; as recent as one month ago, one driver was involved in an accident and the other had a failed inspection. Mr. Cevirme had no response except to state that with the involvement of the new safety consultant, “things will change”.
Phillip Daoust gave evidence on behalf of the Appellant. He is the president of Fleet Safety Consulting. As a safety consultant, he brings 30 years of experience in the transportation safety industry. He has operated his company for eight years. He works for extended periods of time with three to five clients. In his experience, companies who have hired his services greatly improve their safety records. He indicated that changes with trucking companies occur over time and it takes a lot of effort to change the culture around safety.
Mr. Daoust stated he was hired approximately six weeks ago by Dash Transport. In his review of the company’s operations, he saw no evidence of written procedures for hours of service, regulations or maintenance schedules. He has drafted a handbook of policies and procedures (Exhibit 4), which he adapted from other employer manuals. He has yet to review this handbook with Mr. Cevirme, which he plans to do prior to implementation. The handbook consists of employee obligations, maintenance and inspection schedules, progressive discipline and training schedules. He recently conducted a training session with Mr. Cevirme and one driver, A.M. The third driver, T.Q. will soon be scheduled for training. Mr. Daoust plans to assume responsibility for all the company’s record keeping. He stated that CVOR summaries and driver’s abstracts will be requested and reviewed on a monthly basis to monitor performance.
Mr. Daoust stated that Mr. Cevirme and one driver were receptive to his training and they welcomed the opportunity to learn. They seemed willing to adjust to new expectations and commitments. He is prepared to work with the company and estimates that a positive turn around on issues involving log books and maintenance issues should be noticeable in six months. A safety record rate of less than 35% should be achievable within a year and a half.
In cross-examination, Mr. Daoust stated that in late June, 2015, he was contacted by Mr. Debly and was asked to work as a safety consultant for Dash Transport. He was paid a retainer when the agreement was signed with Mr. Cevirme and will be paid on an hourly basis in the future. He has never met or spoken to Mr. Kornes, the owner. The agreement is an open ended contract with a clause that requires a written notice of 15 days from the company to end the agreement. Although he has three other regular full time clients, he is confident that he and his staff of two persons can devote the time required to work with Dash Transport. He believes that Mr. Cevirme and the drivers will cooperate and work to improve the safety performance of the company.
THE LAW
The statutory authority for the actions of the Registrar and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal are set out in sections 47, 47.1 and 50 of the Act, as follows:
Suspension and cancellation of licence, etc., general
- (1) Subject to section 47.1, the Registrar may suspend or cancel,
(a) the plate portion of a permit as defined in Part II;
(c) a CVOR certificate,
on the grounds of, …
(f) the Registrar having reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the holder or of a person related to the holder, and any other information that the Registrar considers relevant, that the holder will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with this Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety;
Power to seize number plates
(8.1) If the plate portion of a permit is suspended or cancelled under clause (1) (a), the Registrar may order that the plate portion of the permit or the number plates issued in connection with the plate portion of the permit be seized and any police officer or officer appointed for carrying out this Act may seize the plate portion of the permit and the number plates and deliver them to the Ministry.
Definitions, “commercial motor vehicle”, etc.
(9) For the purposes of this section and section 47.1,
“commercial motor vehicle”, “operator” and “safety record” have the same meanings as in subsection 16 (1).
Notice of proposed action, s. 47
47.1(1) Before taking any action under clause 47 (1) (a) or (c) or subsection 47 (2), the Registrar shall notify the person whose plate portion of a permit or CVOR certificate is to be affected of his or her proposed action.
Appeal
- (1) Every person aggrieved by a decision of the Minister made under subsection 32 (5) for which there is a right of appeal pursuant to a regulation made under clause 32 (14) (n) or a decision of the Registrar under section 17 or 47 may appeal the decision to the Tribunal.
Powers of Tribunal
(2) The Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the decision of the Minister or Registrar.
ANALYSIS
The issues before the Tribunal are first, whether there is reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the Appellant or of a person related to the Appellant, that the Appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety and, second, if there is such reason, what order the Tribunal should make.
In closing submissions, Mr. DeFaria, Counsel for the Registrar, argued that the safety record of Dash Transport is very poor and asked the Tribunal to uphold the Registrar’s proposal to cancel the CVOR. At the Show Cause meeting of January 13, 2015, its V.R. was 100.8%. The company has a record of sanctions, non-compliance and broken promises. It mirrors the record of two previous companies operated by Mr. Cevirme. Dash Transport may have a new owner, but Mr. Cevirme is the controlling mind of the company. The Registrar submits that Dash Transport was not fully transparent when it applied for a CVOR. Had the Registrar known of Mr. Cevirme’s role with the company, the CVOR would have been refused as he is the subject of a cancelled CVOR certificate.
Mr. DeFaria submitted that Mr. Cevirme has been involved in the trucking industry for a long time and obtained his first CVOR nine years ago. He is not new to the industry and the CVOR program. A warning letter in August 2013, alerted him to the safety problems of Dash Transport. A responsible operations manager would have taken immediate action to address the failing safety record of the company. It was only in June, 2015, that a safety consultant was hired, despite a commitment to do so six months earlier at the Show Cause meeting. The changes to improve the company’s operations are in the very early stages. The Registrar cannot rely on Dash Transport’s hopes and aspirations to operate safely, when there has been a pattern of poor safety and little demonstrated action to improve over the years despite ample opportunity to do so. Mr. Cevirme’s refusal to pay the outstanding fines associated with Blue Streak demonstrates that he does not take the industry’s obligations seriously.
In the opinion of the Registrar, Mr. Cevirme should not be operating or managing the day to day business of a trucking company. He has failed to improve his companies’ safety records and showed limited commitment while with Dash Transport to operate in accordance with the Act and the safety performance standards required by the CVOR guidelines.
Mr. Debly, Counsel for the Appellant, argued that Dash Transport and Mr. Cevirme should be given an opportunity to allow its new compliance program to take effect. He argued that it is a small company with limited resources and it is symbolic of companies who start up and experience safety problems. Mr. Cevirme has realized that he is not able to operate the company on his own. He and his drivers are willing to learn and improvement has already started. They are committed to working with the safety consultant to achieve an improved safety record.
In reaching its decision, the Tribunal has considered the evidence of the parties and two decisions of this Tribunal, submitted by Counsel for the Registrar for consideration: Re: 2043875 Ontario Inc. and 1339233 Ontario Inc., [2013] O.L.A.T.D. 134 and Transco Logistics International Ltd., [2013] O.L.A.T.D. 248.
While there is an indication of a new consultant, the Tribunal does not have any evidence of what beneficial effects have resulted from the training. Although Dash Transport may technically be a new start up company, Mr. Cevirme is not a new manager in the industry. The evidence indicates that the safety records of two previous companies operating under his management were so poor that the CVOR was cancelled for one company and a CVOR application was twice refused for the other company, when a new proposal and change of ownership was presented. The Tribunal heard no evidence of Mr. Cevirme’s willingness to pay the outstanding fines of his former company. He was not prepared to accept responsibility as owner of the company and sought to deflect that upon others. The evidence is clear that he did not act with demonstrated commitment to learn from his past experience as a CVOR holder. The fact that he had the opportunity to apply this experience and failed to manage Dash Transport within those guidelines is viewed with great concern.
The Tribunal has no confidence in the Appellant’s assertion that, in the next six months to one year, with the help of Mr. Daoust and Mr. Debly, it will turn itself around as it is a new company struggling to get it right. While the Tribunal in no way means to cast any aspersions on their professionalism their involvement in this matter amounts to “too little too late”. The Appellant has had a "second chance" and has failed.
The Tribunal concludes that given the unacceptable safety performance of Dash Transport and the concerns about the potential improvement of the safety record under the control of Mr. Cevirme, the Tribunal finds, on the balance of probabilities, that there is reason to believe that Dash Transport will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, its regulations and other laws relating to highway safety.
The Tribunal has carefully considered the appropriate action to order the Registrar to take. The Tribunal concludes that Dash Transport, under the management of Mr. Cevirme, has little respect for safety regulations and that any action other than the cancellation of the CVOR certificate would have little impact on the safety performance of the company which he controls and/or manages.
ORDER
Pursuant to the provisions of section 50(2) of the Act, the Tribunal orders the Registrar to carry out the Cancellation and Seizure Order dated February 12, 2015 and to cancel CVOR certificate 172-830-860 and the plate portion of permits for all commercial motor vehicles and trailers issued to Dash Transport Logistics Inc.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Geneviève Blais, Member
Released: September 18, 2015