Licence Appeal Tribunal
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 to suspend a driver’s licence under subsection 47(1) of the Act.
Between:
R.B.
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Jonathan Batty, Associate Chair
Date: April 15, 2019
Written Submissions By:
For the Appellant: R.B.
INTRODUCTION
1The appellant, R.B., has requested reconsideration of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s decision of December 20, 2018 to confirm the suspension of his driver’s licence for medical reasons.
2Pursuant to her authority under s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5, the Executive Chair delegated to me her responsibility to decide this reconsideration request.
3For the reasons that follow, I deny the appellant’s request for reconsideration.
ANALYSIS
4R.B. is requesting reconsideration based on Rule 18.2(d) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017). According to that rule, reconsideration may be granted if:
(d) There is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.
5R.B. asks that his request not be decided until he is able to submit additional medical documentation to the Tribunal. Specifically, he asks that this matter not be decided until:
i. He submits an EEG test from January 18, 2019.
ii. He obtains a report from his chiropractor reviewing his entire history of treatment up to the present date in the hopes that it will establish some “variations of treatment”.
iii. He obtains a letter from his family doctor explaining what treatment he has received since the incident which gave rise to his suspension.
6In my opinion, all of these things could reasonably have been obtained before the Tribunal heard the matter and made its decision.
7Even had the Tribunal received this evidence, it is not certain that it would have supported the appellant’s position and that the Tribunal would have decided any differently.
8From his reconsideration request, it basically appears the appellant is trying to reopen his case and, once he has gathered it, submit evidence that he hopes will support his position.
9The reconsideration process, however, is not intended to operate in this way.
10It is not meant to be used as a placeholder for parties to gather additional evidence following the Tribunal’s decision.
11Reconsideration is only warranted in cases where the Tribunal has either made a significant legal or evidentiary mistake preventing a just outcome, where false evidence has been admitted, or where genuinely new and undiscoverable evidence comes to light after a hearing.
12For these reasons, I find that the grounds for reconsideration in Rule 18.2(d) have not been met and the Tribunal’s decision does not warrant reconsideration.
13Although R.B.’s reconsideration request has been denied, this does not permanently preclude him from having his licence reinstated. R.B. may submit new medical evidence to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”). As the Tribunal noted, if the Registrar receives new medical documentation, the Registrar will consider whether R.B.’s licence may be reinstated based on that new information.
ORDER
14Upon considering of the submissions of R.B., without requesting submissions from the respondent, R.B.’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Jonathan Batty
Associate Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division
Released: April 15, 2019