Licence Appeal Tribunal
FILE: 9514/CVOR
CASE NAME: 9514 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 Certificates and to Seize the Plate Portion of all Permits Issued and from an Order Refusing to Issue a Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration Certificate.
2181359 Ontario Inc. Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Richard Macklin, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellants: Arjun Vishwanth, Counsel
For the Respondent: Patrick S. Moore, Counsel
Heard in Toronto: January 7 and 20, 2016
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 April 15, 2015, pursuant to section 47(1) of the Act. That order cancelled a Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (“CVOR”) certificate and ordered seizure of the plate portion of any permits issued.
The Registrar also issued an order, dated June 30, 2015, under s. 17 of the Act, refusing to renew the same CVOR. The Appellant also appeals that order.
The parties have agreed that the two appeals be heard together.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Daljit Dhaliwhal and his wife Simranjit, moved to Ontario in 2008. They became involved in the Ontario trucking business at the suggestion of Simranjit Dhaliwhal’s brother, Manjit Singh.
The essence of their involvement was that the Dhaliwals invested funds in several trucking companies, including the Appellant, served as nominal officers and directors, and left Manjit Singh in charge, managing the businesses.
The trucking operations run by Manjit Singh, including those of the Appellant, were determined by the Registrar to be unsafe. The Registrar seeks to cancel and not renew, the Appellant's CVOR. The Appellant submits that Mr. Singh utilized the Dhaliwals' finances and positions as officers and directors improperly. It also submits that the Dhaliwals have now severed ties with Mr. Singh, and thus the Appellant should be given another chance at a CVOR.
THE EVIDENCE
i) The CVOR System
The CVOR system was developed by the Ministry of Transportation in order to, amongst other things, provide a standardized method of assessing the safety ratings of licensed commercial vehicle operators. The Ministry considers various factors, including the number of collisions, convictions and failed inspections of a carrier, and arrives at a weighted violation rate. That violation rate is expressed as a “percentage of threshold”. The higher the percentage of threshold number, the worse the safety rating.
Unsafe carriers are monitored by a progression of steps. As a general rule, the following occurs, in the event of safety violations:
i) At a violation rate of 35% of threshold, the Registrar will issue a warning letter;
ii) At a rate of 50%, a facility audit will be conducted;
iii) At 85%, an interview will be arranged; and
iv) At 100%, a sanction analysis will be conducted.
ii) 2181359 Ontario Inc. (the "Appellant")
The Appellant reached a violation rate of 116.6% of threshold, for the two-year period ending April 17, 2011. A show cause meeting was conducted on June 11, 2011. Ranjit Dhaliwal attended on behalf of the Appellant. At the meeting, Mr. Dhaliwal advised the Registrar, that he had 12 to 13 trucks but was prepared to reduce his fleet to 4. He further advised that he was now attending the yard in the early morning to supervise his employees in how they completed their pre-trip inspections. He stated that he had fired and replaced the company’s safety consultant. He stated that he terminated two drivers and now took extraordinary steps such as following his existing drivers, in order to ensure that the company would not be back before the Registrar. He further advised that the high violation rate was "his fault" for "trusting others".
In his evidence before the Tribunal, however, Mr. Dhaliwal admitted that much of what he stated at this show cause meeting was false, and that he had been coached to say those things by Mr. Singh. The truth was that he had only occasional involvement in the management of the Appellant.
The Registrar, however, accepted some of what was said at the show cause hearing and instead of cancelling the Appellant’s CVOR, ordered a 7 day suspension for the period of September 12, 2011 to September