S.J. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2018 CanLII 50221

Date: 2018-05-17

Appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 8, from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles pursuant to subsection 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act

Between:

S.J.

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

Adjudicator: Jeanie Theoharis, Vice Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: S.J., Appellant

For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent

By Written Submissions

DISMISSAL ORDER AND DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 14, 2017, to appeal the Registrar of Motor Vehicles’ decision dated January 18, 2017. The Registrar’s decision indicated that the appellant does not meet the eligibility requirements for the vision waiver program as outlined in section 21.2(1) of Regulation 340/94 (the Regulation) pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 because his licence is currently under suspension for impaired driving.

2A preliminary review of the notice of appeal was conducted, and upon review it appeared that the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. On December 28, 2017 the Tribunal sent a letter to the appellant, by copy to the respondent, informing the parties of the Tribunal’s possible lack of jurisdiction and asking the appellant to confirm whether he would like to proceed with his appeal at the Tribunal. The appellant confirmed he would like to move forward with filing his appeal.

3On January 29, 2018, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The Notice indicated that the Tribunal intended to dismiss the appeal without a hearing pursuant to section 4.6 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA”) and Rules 3.4 to 3.5 of the The Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version 1 (October 2, 2017) (“Tribunal Rules”) as the proceeding relates to matters outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Notice set out the reasons for the Notice, and gave the parties an opportunity to make written submissions to the Tribunal as to why the appeal should not be dismissed. The parties made submissions in accordance with the notice.

4This order and decision relates to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal.

5The appellant submits that he meets the eligibility requirements for the vision waiver program as found in section 21.2 (1) of the Regulation. In particular, the appellant asserts that the Registrar incorrectly determined that he does not meet the eligibility of the Class G vision waiver program by requiring that five years must have elapsed from the reinstatement date of his suspension for impaired driving.

6The respondent indicated that the appellant’s licence is currently suspended under section 32(5)(b)(ii) for failing to meet the mandatory vision standards, in particular, because five years have not elapsed from the reinstatement date of his impaired driving suspension. As such the Registrar asserts the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

ISSUE AND RESULT

7The issue is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the Registrar’s decision that the appellant does not meet the eligibility of the Class G vision waiver program due to the appellant’s driver’s licence being suspended as a result of a conviction under the Criminal Code (Canada) for impaired driving.

8I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal related to the Registrar’s decision that the appellant does not meet the eligibility of the Class G vision waiver program due to his suspended driver’s licence under subsection 32(5)(b)(ii).

LAW AND ANALYSIS

9The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear appeals under section 50(1) of the Act of any decision made by the Minister of Transportation under section 32(5) of the Act for which there is a right of appeal pursuant to Ont. Regulation 340/94.

10Section 25.1 of Ont. Regulation 340/94 indicates that a decision made by the Minister of Transportation under sub-clause 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act is a decision that a person may appeal under section 50 of the Act to the Tribunal. A decision made by the Minister of Transportation under sub-clause 32(5)(b)(ii) is not a decision that a person may appeal to the Tribunal.

11In the absence of express regulatory authority permitting appeals under sub-clause 32(5)(b)(ii), the legislation is clear that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals under this sub-clause.

12The Registrar asserts that the appellant’s driver’s licence is suspended under sub-clause 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act for not meeting the eligibility requirements of the vision waiver program.

13A driver must meet basic medical and vision standards for driving. However, a part of the vision standards may be waived if an individual demonstrates they can compensate for the defect and drive safely. The driver must also meet other criteria to enter into the vision waiver program.

14One such requirement under the vision waiver program is that the applicant not have had his driver’s licence under suspension within the preceding five years as a result of a conviction under the Criminal Code (Canada) for an offence committed by means of a motor vehicle or while having care, charge or control of a motor vehicle. The Registrar asserts the appellant did not meet this eligibility requirement.

15In August 2011 the appellant was charged with impaired driving. In September 2011, the appellant was convicted of impaired driving and had his driver’s licence suspended. Also, the appellant’s Extended Driver Record for Criminal Code Convictions indicates that the appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended effective November 18, 2011 until a satisfactory eye certificate is received. The appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended for five years.

16The appellant applied to reinstate his driver’s license by obtaining a satisfactory eye certificate. In a letter dated January 18, 2017, the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles indicated that the appellant’s Class G Vision Waiver Application was denied because the appellant did not meet the eligibility requirements for the vision waiver program as outlined in Ont. Regulation 340/94.

17Whether an individual satisfies the eligibility requirements for the vision waiver program are not issues that may be appealed to the Tribunal. The Registrar’s decision that the applicant did not meet the prescribed requirements are within sub-clause 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act, and are not appealable to the Tribunal.

CONCLUSION

18The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal. The appeal is dismissed.