Licence Appeal Tribunal
Appeal from a Cancellation and Seizure Order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.8
Between:
Great Lakes Offshore Services Inc., Darrin Smith & Hoover’s Marina Limited
Appellants
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Jonathan Batty, Associate Chair
Date: December 6, 2018
Written Submissions By:
For the Appellant Great Lakes Offshore Inc.: William Whelan, Agent
1The appellant, Great Lakes Offshore Inc. (“Great Lakes”), has requested reconsideration of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s decision to confirm the cancellation and seizure order by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”). The effect of the order is to terminate Great Lakes’ right to operate commercial trucks on Ontario highways. The Tribunal set aside the cancellation and seizure orders in respect of the other appellants, but confirmed the order in respect of Great Lakes.
2The Executive Chair delegated to me her responsibility to decide this reconsideration request.
3For the reasons that follow, Great Lakes’ request for reconsideration is dismissed.
4A request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision may be granted only based on the grounds listed in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) (the “Rules”).
5The grounds for reconsideration relied on by Great Lakes are found in Rule 18.2(d) that allows for reconsideration on the basis that:
(d) There is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.
6This ground for reconsideration is intended to address instances where evidence that was in existence at the time of the decision could not reasonably have been submitted to the Tribunal. That is what “new evidence” means in this context. It does not envision that later changes of circumstance following a decision provide grounds for reconsideration.
7Great Lakes submits the Tribunal’s decision should be reconsidered on the basis of “new evidence, unavailable at [the] time of the hearing.” Great Lakes notes the Tribunal was concerned about the rehiring of a former driver with a poor safety record. Great Lakes now advises that this driver no longer works for Great Lakes and has been replaced by a new driver with a clean abstract.
8In support of its request, Great Lakes also notes that the “information regarding safe operations on the roadways is now fully in the hands of [Mr. Whelan] and driver logs and inspections are monitored weekly”. Great Lakes further submits that the Tribunal’s concern about rehiring a former driver without consulting with Mr. Whelan has been addressed, too.
9No submissions were requested from the respondent, and none were received.
10While it appears that Great Lakes has taken further steps towards improving safety following the Tribunal’s decision, the reconsideration process is not an opportunity to argue that circumstances have changed since the time of the decision.
11In this context, Great Lakes’ remedial efforts following the hearing is not relevant to the ground in Rule 18.2(d). As it has not raised any other grounds for reconsideration, the criteria for reconsideration in Rule 18.2 are not met.
ORDER
12Upon consideration of the submissions of Great Lakes, without requesting submissions from the respondent, Great Lakes’ request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Date of Issue: December 6, 2018
Jonathan Batty, Associate Chair