Appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while suspended.
Between:
Nicholas Wellington Gerald Brownell
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant: Nicholas Wellington Gerald Brownell, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent
OVERVIEW
1This Request for Reconsideration was filed by the appellant.
2It arises out of an Order dated August 12, 2019 in which appellant’s motion to extend the time to file his appeal was denied and his appeal was dismissed.
BACKGROUND
3The appellant appealed the impoundment of his vehicle on February 26, 2019 for 45 days on the grounds that the impoundment was an exceptional hardship on him. The appellant’s vehicle was available for release on April 12, 2019. The appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on May 23, 2019 and his Notice of Motion to extend the time for appealing the impoundment on May 28, 2019. After the appellant filed his motion, the agent for the Registrar of Motor Vehicles filed a motion seeking an Order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
4A hearing was held on July 22, 2019 by teleconference to consider both motions:
a. The appellant’s motion made May 28, 2019 for an Order granting an extension of time for the appellant to file an appeal pursuant to section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) from the impoundment of his vehicle on February 26, 2019 by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“respondent”).
b. The respondent’s motion made July 3, 2019 for an Order to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
5The issue before the Tribunal on the appellant’s motion was whether I should extend the time for the appellant to file his appeal.
6The issue before the Tribunal on the respondent’s motion was whether I should dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
7The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish reasonable grounds for an extension of the time to file his appeal. The appellant’s motion was denied, and his appeal was dismissed.
8The Tribunal also found that because the appeal had been dismissed, it was not necessary to deal with the respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
9The applicant is seeking an order:
(i) Cancelling the Tribunal’s order / decision, or
(ii) Varying the Tribunal’s order / decision, or
(iii) For a rehearing on all or part of the matter.
10Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5, I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with the applicable rules of the Tribunal.
RESULT
11The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
12The grounds for a Request for Reconsideration to be allowed are contained in Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure. A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules procedural fairness; or
b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had the error not been made; or
c) The Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or
d) There is new evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
13The appellant relies on the following two grounds as set out in his Request for Reconsideration:
(a) that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness and ground, and
(b) that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had the error not been made.
14Both parties made submissions on the reconsideration. The appellant’s submissions repeated some of the submissions he made at the hearing of his motion about why his appeal was not filed in time, expressed his general dissatisfaction with the outcome of the motion and brought up ten years of his personal circumstances including his current incarceration which are not relevant to his motion.
15The respondent made submissions on the two grounds raised by the appellant and also the other two possible grounds for reconsideration. With respect to ground (a), the respondent submitted that the Tribunal did not act outside its jurisdiction as s. 50.2 of the Act specifically grants to the Tribunal jurisdiction over the appellant’s appeal and nothing in the appellants submissions suggest he is alleging the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. The respondent also submitted that the Tribunal did not violate the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness because the Tribunal gave the appellant every opportunity to provide both oral and documentary evidence at the hearing and nothing in the appellants submissions suggest he is alleging that the Tribunal violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness.
16With respect to ground (b), the respondent submitted that the appellant has not identified any error of law or any particular error of fact much less a significant error of fact made by the Tribunal.
17I am satisfied that that the Tribunal did not act outside its jurisdiction or violate the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal in this case is clear. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal under s. 50.2 of the Act and to hear his motion for an extension of time to appeal under s. 9 of O. Reg. 631/98 and s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act. The appellant did not make any specific submissions as to how the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness were violated at the hearing of his motion. The appellant filed a written Notice of Motion requesting the motion hearing, was given notice of the hearing, chose to represent himself, attended, made oral submissions and participated as fully in the hearing as he chose to at the time.
18I am also satisfied that the Tribunal did not make an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had the error not been made. The appellant has not identified any significant error of law or fact made by the Tribunal in the decision. I have reviewed the Tribunal’s decision on the appellant’s motion and note that the Tribunal considered and recorded in the decision substantially all relevant facts put forward by the appellant regarding his failure to appeal during the 15 day time limit prescribed by the legislation and up to the filing of the appellant’s Notice of Appeal with the Tribunal on May 23, 2019.
19In the words of Vice-Chair Lester in Reconsideration Decision 10872/MVDA dated June 12, 2019, “A request for Reconsideration is not an opportunity to rehash the submissions argued at the hearing or an opportunity to state new submissions.” The grounds for reconsideration of a Tribunal final decision are limited and specific. In order to succeed on a reconsideration request, at least one of the four grounds must be proven. In this particular case, because the appellant has requested reconsideration, the onus is on the appellant to prove his grounds and he has not done so. Instead, the appellant has repeated some of the submissions he made at the hearing about why his appeal was not filed in time, expressed general dissatisfaction with the outcome of his motion and brought up ten years of his personal circumstances including his current incarceration which are not relevant to his motion.
CONCLUSION
20For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration.
_________________________ Avril A. Farlam Vice-Chair Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: October 30, 2019