R.B. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2019 CanLII 32291

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2019-03-27

Appeal under section 47(1)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a driver’s licence for medical reasons.

Between:

R.B.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

Decision

ADJUDICATOR: Luisa Ritacca

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: R.B., the Appellant Brandon Crawford, Counsel for the Appellant

For the Respondent: Registrar of Motor Vehicles Kyle Biel, Agent for the Respondent

Heard by Teleconference on: August 10, 2018

OVERVIEW

1On September 13, 2018, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) issued an Order requiring the parties to provide written submissions on the issue of whether the Tribunal ought to consider the Appellant’s appeal of his March 2017 suspension. The parties provided their submissions in October and November 2018. It is the Appellant’s position that the appeal of his March 2017 suspension ought to be considered by this Tribunal. The Respondent asserts that the appeal should not be considered as it relates to matters outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and that in any event was abandoned by the Appellant.

2Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, as well as the Appellant’s affidavit, the Tribunal finds that the appeal should not be considered as it was abandoned and that the Appellant’s ongoing complaint is not a matter over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The Tribunal’s reasons are set out below.

THE FACTS

3The Appellant’s driving privilege was suspended for medical reasons under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act (the “Act”) on March 2, 2017. The Appellant was notified of this suspension by way of letter from the Registrar, which advised him that the Ministry had received medical information indicating that the Appellant has a condition that affects his ability to drive safely, namely alcohol dependence and syncope/loss of consciousness.

4On July 12, 2017, the Appellant appealed his suspension to the Tribunal. The Appellant submitted that the medical information relied upon by the Registrar was inaccurate and that the doctor who had provided it did not know the Appellant. The Appellant’s hearing was scheduled for August 23, 2017.

5Prior to the hearing, the Appellant provided the Registrar with updated medical information, which appears to have satisfied the Registrar, who lifted the suspension on August 3, 2017. The Appellant was notified of this by letter dated August 3, 2017.

6Included in the August correspondence was a letter from the Medical Review Section of the Ministry, which advised the Appellant that he would need to file a further medical report on January 27, 2018.

7In addition to the correspondence received from the Respondent, the Appellant received a further letter on August 3, 2017 from the Tribunal confirming that in light of the fact that the Appellant’s licence was reinstated the scheduled hearing was cancelled and the Tribunal was closing its file.

8The Appellant delivered a new Notice of Appeal to the Tribunal on May 29, 2018, wherein he argued that he did not abandon his appeal in August 2017 and that he would not have agreed to cancel the hearing had he known that the Respondent would require additional medical information from him. It appears that the Appellant was not aware of this fact until he was charged with driving while under suspension, sometime in 2018.

THE LAW

9Section 50(1) of the Act provides that 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 or order of the Registrar under section 17 or 47 may appeal the decision to the Tribunal.

10The Appellant’s licence was suspended pursuant to section 47 of the Act, which allows the Registrar to suspend a driver’s licence for various reasons, including where the Registrar believes that that the licence holder will not operate a vehicle safely or for any other sufficient reasons.

11There is no dispute that a decision made under section 47 is subject to appeal to the Tribunal, pursuant to section 50(1)

12Section 32(5) of the Act provides as follows:

(5) The Minister may require an applicant for a driver’s licence or an endorsement or a person who holds a driver’s licence to submit to the examinations that are authorized by the regulations at the times and places required by the Minister and to meet other prescribed requirements, and the Minister may,

(a) in the case of an applicant for a driver’s licence,

(i) issue the driver’s licence of the class and subject to the conditions authorized by the regulations that, in the opinion of the Minister, are justified by the results of the examinations and other prescribed requirements, or

(ii) where the applicant fails to submit to or to successfully complete the examinations or fails to meet the other prescribed requirements, refuse to issue a driver’s licence to the applicant;

(b) in the case of a person who holds a driver’s licence,

(i) impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any conditions or endorsements or change the class or classes of driver’s licence held by the person, in accordance with the results of the examinations and other prescribed requirements, or

(ii) where the person fails to submit to or to successfully complete the examinations or fails to meet the other prescribed requirements, impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any endorsements, suspend or cancel the driver’s licence held by the person or change the class or classes of driver’s licence held by the person;

(c) in the case of a person who holds a driver’s licence and who is an applicant for an endorsement,

(i) grant the endorsements authorized by the regulations that, in the opinion of the Minister, are justified by the results of the examinations and other prescribed requirements, or

(ii) where the person fails to submit to or to successfully complete the examinations or fails to meet the other prescribed requirements, refuse to grant the endorsements applied for. 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 12 (1).

13Section 25.1 of Regulation 340/94 provides in part that a decision made by the Minister under sub clause 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act may be appealed to the Tribunal pursuant to section 50(1) of the Act. There are no other decisions under section 32(5) which may be appealed.

14Finally, sections 15 of Regulation 340/94 provides in part that an applicant or holder of a driver’s licence may be required to submit to medical or physical examinations at any time as required by the Minister.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

15The Respondent submits that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed on the basis that it (i) is frivolous, vexatious or commenced in bad faith; (ii) relates to matters outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and (iii) that the appellant has abandoned the proceeding.

16The Appellant submits that the appeal is not frivolous or vexatious, that it is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and that he did not specifically abandon his appeal in August 2017 or at any time thereafter.

(i) Is the Appeal Frivolous, Vexatious or Commenced in Bad Faith?

17There is no question that the commencement of the appeal in July 2017 was not frivolous or commenced in bad faith. The Appellant took issue with Registrar’s decision to suspend his licence, as is his right. I find that there were reasonable grounds to commence the appeal in July 2017.

18Similarly, I find that the Appellant’s renewed effort to appeal the March 2017 suspension is not frivolous or commenced in bad faith. The Appellant takes the position that the basis of the original suspension was flawed and that the issue should be adjudicated, even in the face of having his licence reinstated. Further, the Appellant argues that the status of his licence is presently being impacted by the original suspension and as such as a right to advance his appeal.

19In the circumstances, in my view the Appellant’s arguments are not frivolous or advanced in bad faith. While, as set out below, I believe the appeal should not proceed for other reasons, I do not find that the appeal is frivolous, vexatious or commenced in bad faith.

(ii) The Appeal Relates to Matters outside the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

20It is the Appellant’s position that the current requests by the Registrar for updated medical information relate to his original suspension in March 2017. For that reason, the Appellant argues that he has a right to have his appeal considered by the Tribunal. It is the Appellant’s view that if he succeeds on his appeal, the Tribunal can prevent the Minister from seeking updated medical information.

21Even if I were satisfied that the appeal was not abandoned, it is clear that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited. The Tribunal has no authority to stop the Minister from seeking medical information after a holder’s licence is reinstated. Under section 15 of Ontario Regulation 340/94, the Minister can require this of any licence holder and pursuant to section 32(b)(ii) of the Act, the Minister can impose conditions, suspend or cancel a driver’s licence where a holder fails to submit or successful complete examinations as request and prescribed by regulation. Such requirements are not subject to appeal under section 50(1) of the Act.

22In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the relief being sought by the Appellant in his renewed appeal is relief that is outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Simply put, even if the Appellant could successfully argue that the original suspension was based on erroneous medical information, the Minister is still free under the governing legislation to require the Appellant to provide updated medical information.

(iii) Was the March 2017 Appeal Abandoned?

23In his May 2018 Notice of Appeal, the Appellant acknowledges that he abandoned his previous appeal of the March 2017 suspension. In his affidavit evidence, the Appellant acknowledges that as of August 2017, he considered “this to be the end of the matter”, but he only did so on the mistaken belief that his driving privileges would be restored “unconditionally”.

24The Appellant received three letters all dated August 3, 2017, which made clear that the appeal hearing would not be proceeding, that his licence had been reinstated and that he would be required to file a further medical report on or by January 27, 2018.

25In the face of this information the Appellant chose to take no further action until May 2018. Based on the letters received, the Appellant knew or ought to have known that he would need to provide a further medical report in January 2018. There is no suggestion in any of the correspondence that his licence was being reinstated “unconditionally” or that he would not have to abide by the Act or the relevant regulations thereunder.

26The Appellant agreed to cancel his hearing date. He took no issue with the correspondence he received in August 2017. In my view, the Appellant cannot nine months later decide that he is unhappy with the resolution he reached with the Respondent and attempt to revive his appeal.

27In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the appeal was abandoned and that in any event the relief the Appellant is now seeking is outside of the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

28For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the appeal should not proceed.