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.
Between:
D.C.
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Jennifer Friedland, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent
Heard by: Written Submissions
Overview
1The appellant seeks to appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) suspending his driver’s licence for failing to provide a medical report. The suspension occurred twenty years ago, in 1999, under the authority of what was then s. 32(12)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”). The comparable provision today is s. 32(5)(b)(ii).
2The Licence Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) has consistently found that it does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of today’s HTA. This is because the HTA does not provide an avenue for appeal from such a decision. On the assumption that there would equally have been no right of appeal under the 1999 Act, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the appellant’s case without a hearing. This is a process allowed under the Tribunal’s Rules if an appeal relates to matters that are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction1.
3As set out in the Tribunal’s rules at section 3.5, the parties were provided the opportunity to make written submissions on the issue before a final decision would be made. The Respondent was specifically asked to address what provision of the Act the appellant’s licence was suspended under in 1999 and why a suspension under that provision did not allow a right of appeal today.
Result
4For the reasons given below, the Tribunal finds that it does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The appeal will therefore be dismissed without a hearing pursuant to s. 3.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules and s. 4.6 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 22.
Background to the Decision which the Appellant Seeks to Appeal
5The appellant’s licence was first suspended in the 1980s following a number of drinking and driving convictions. It was subsequently reinstated after he submitted medical reports attesting to his sobriety. However, when asked to provide a follow-up report, in 1999, he failed to provide one.
6On October 12, 1999, a Senior Analyst of a division of the Ministry then called “Driver Review and Control” wrote to the appellant advising:
Your follow up report from your physician confirming continued abstinence from alcohol supported with laboratory test results (MCV and GGT) is now due.
7The forms that the appellant was required to have completed by his doctor were provided with the Ministry’s letter, which further stated:
This assessment must be returned to this office by November 21, 1999 or your driver’s licence will be further suspended.
8The Registrar did not receive the updated report and thus on December 13, 1999, the appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended. The notice read:
Your driver’s licence is suspended under sec. 32(12) of the Highway Traffic Act effective Dec. 21, 1999
Reason: Failure to submit a satisfactory medical report.
Your driver’s licence will be reinstated when you file a satisfactory medical report.
9Twenty years later, the appellant filed a notice of appeal in relation to his 1999 suspension. The reason for his delay in appealing the suspension was not explained to the Tribunal. However, his driving record shows that in June 2018 he was convicted of driving while suspended so possibly this triggered his desire to appeal the underlying suspension.
The Position of the Parties
10The appellant submits that it is unfair that his licence remain suspended. He states that he submitted two medical reports and should not have had to produce a third. He says he is no longer drinking, and that the offences occurred when he was a youth. He states that he has “not read anywhere that the ministry can request further medicals when there have been no new incidents that should require them.” He feels that his “rights have been violated” and that he should be entitled to regain his licence. He makes no submissions on the issue of whether he has a right of appeal under the HTA with respect to his suspension, indicating only that it would be unfair to dismiss his appeal.
11The respondent submits that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Registrar’s position is that the appellant’s licence was suspended under of s. 32 (12) (b) (ii) of the 1999 HTA and that there is no right of appeal from such a suspension. The Registrar submits that the Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
ANALYSIS
The Provision under which the Appellant’s Licence was Suspended
12Whether we look at the provision existing in 1999 under which the appellant’s licence was suspended for failing to provide a satisfactory medical report; or the provision that would apply today for the same failing; it is not one that provides a right of appeal.
13Section 32 (12) of the 1999 HTA – now section 32 (5) of the current HTA – sets out the authority of the Minister to require a person who is applying for, or already has, a driver’s licence, to submit to examinations authorized by the regulations. The applicable regulations – then, as now – address a number of conditions that could pose a risk to road safety and that might require testing (for example, if a person is losing their eyesight, a vision test might be required). One such provision addresses the issue of addictions and prohibits a holder of a driver’s licence “to be addicted to the use of alcohol or a drug to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive.” Thus, following the appellant’s convictions for drinking and driving offences, he was asked to provide proof of his continued abstinence from alcohol in order to maintain his licence. When the appellant failed to provide the requested report, his licence was suspended.
14Although the Notice suspending his licence in 1999 states that it was suspended under section 32(12) of the Highway Traffic Act then in existence, and does not state the subsection, the wording of the Notice of Suspension as well as the context make it clear that it was suspended under subsection 32(12)(b)(ii). That provision is as follows:
32 (12) Examinations - An applicant for a driver’s licence or a person who holds a driver’s licence shall submit to the examinations that are authorized by the regulations relating to this section and required by the Minister at the times and places that the Minister may require and the Minister may,
(b) in the case of a person who holds a driver’s licence,
(i) impose or remove the conditions or endorsements authorized by the regulations or change the class or classes of motor vehicles in respect of which the licence is issued in accordance with the results of the examinations, or
(ii) where the person fails to submit to or to successfully complete the examinations, suspend or cancel the driver’s licence held by the person.
15In the appellant’s case, the Minister’s decision was not to impose or remove conditions “in accordance with the results of the examinations” – which would be subsection (i); it was to suspend his licence for failing to submit to the examination that the Minister required, which is subsection (ii). This is plain from both the wording of the letter advising that the appellant’s follow up report from his physician was now due and if it was not provided his licence would be suspended; and from the wording of the suspension notice itself advising that his licence was now suspended for failing to provide the requested report. Furthermore, it is only 32(12)(b)(ii) that includes the power to suspend a licence.
The Right of Appeal from s. 32(12)(b)(ii) of the 1999 HTA
16In 1999, the right to appeal was set out in the HTA at section 50(1) which reads:
50 (1) Appeal – Every person aggrieved by a decision of the Minister under subsection 17(2) or (3) or subclause 32(12)(b)(i) or a decision of the Registrar under section 47 may appeal the decision to the Licence Suspension Appeal Board. (emphasis added)
17There was no provision in the Act that provided a right of appeal from a decision made under subclause 32(12)(b)(ii) of the Act.
18The substance of the 1999 provisions set out above – authorizing the Minister to request that a driver undergo an examination and to suspend a driver’s licence if he or she fails to do so – are set out in the current HTA at section 32(5) and 32(5)(b)(ii). Under the current HTA, there is similarly no right of appeal from this provision.
19As pointed out by the Registrar in this case, the remedy for a person aggrieved by a decision taken because he or she failed to submit or complete the required examinations, is to submit or complete them.
Conclusion
20As there is no right of appeal from the Minister’s decision to have suspended the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 32(12)(b)(ii) of the version of the HTA in effect in 1999, the appeal cannot be heard. The Tribunal may only hear matters for which there is a right of appeal provided in the applicable statute. Simply put, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
Order
21The appeal is dismissed without a hearing pursuant to Rule 3.4 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017; amended February 7, 2019) and s. 4.6 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 22.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Jennifer Friedland, Member
Released: June 25, 2019