Date: 2019-04-16

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:

P.P.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Jeanie Theoharis, Vice-Chair

Date: April 16, 2019

Written Submissions By:

For the Appellant: P.P., Appellant

For the Respondent: Sonia De Santis, Agent

BACKGROUND

1The appellant, P.P., filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal the impoundment of his motor vehicle to the Licence Appeal Tribunal under s. 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, as he had filed his appeal outside of the 15-day time period. The Tribunal may grant an extension of time under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c 12, Sch G.

2The appellant did not attend the case conference on February 11, 2019, at which time his motion was to be heard. The Tribunal made several unsuccessful attempts to reach the appellant. The Tribunal then proceeded to hear the motion in the appellant’s absence, and denied the appellant’s request for an extension of time.

3It subsequently came to my attention that the Notice of Case Conference sent to the parties stated the date of the case conference incorrectly. Accordingly, I decided on my own initiative to reconsider the Tribunal’s decision on the basis that the rules of procedural fairness were violated.

4I invited the parties to make submissions on the following issues:

• whether the rules of procedural fairness have been violated;

• whether they consented to the reconsideration being granted; and

• if reconsideration is granted, whether the matter may be reheard by the same Member whose decision is the subject of the request.

5Both parties made submissions on the reconsideration. The appellant’s submissions focused on the merits of his request for an extension of time, rather than the questions listed above.

6The respondent submits that the rules of procedural fairness were not violated, as the respondent had emailed the Tribunal about the error on the Notice of Case Conference, copying the appellant, and asking if an amended Notice of Case Conference would be provided. Further, the appellant received a reminder email on February 8, 2019 that provided call in details for the February 11, 2019 case conference, as well as several attempted telephone calls by the Tribunal. The respondent does not consent to the reconsideration, but consented to the matter being heard by the same member in the event that reconsideration is granted.

ANALYSIS

7I am satisfied that the rules of procedural fairness were violated, and therefore order a rehearing of the motion for an extension of time.

8Pursuant to rules 18.2(b) and 18.4(b)(ii) 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 Tribunal may order a rehearing of a matter if the rules of procedural fairness were violated.

9The rules of procedural fairness include an opportunity to be heard. In this case, the appellant did not have an opportunity to be heard before his motion for an extension of time was dismissed. This is because he received a Notice of Case Conference that incorrectly stated the date of the motion hearing. Although the appellant received other correspondence that stated the correct date, and although the Tribunal attempted to contact him on the day of the case conference, the appellant was entitled to rely on the date stated on the Notice of Case Conference. Further, no amended Notice of Case Conference was ever provided. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the appellant did not have the notice necessary to provide him with an opportunity to be heard on his motion. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the rules of procedural fairness were violated and a rehearing is necessary.

ORDER

10I order a rehearing of the appellant’s motion for an extension of time. The rehearing may be heard by any available member, including the same member whose decision is the subject of this reconsideration.