RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Harriet Lewis
Tribunal File Number: 11417 ADLS
Case Name: Tedroy Gomes v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant: Tedroy Gomes
For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the Appellant. It arises out of a decision of this Tribunal made September 5, 2019, dismissing the Appellant’s appeal of a 90-day suspension of his driving privileges. His licence was suspended on May 11, 2017.
2The appeal was heard in person in Toronto, Ontario on June 25, 2019. The issue in the appeal was whether the appellant was the same individual of whom a demand was made under sections 254 or 256 of the Criminal Code (Canada) requiring him to present a driver’s licence pursuant to s. 48.3(1) or provide a breath sample pursuant to s. 48.3(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990. C.H.8 ( “the Act”).
3The Tribunal found that the Appellant was the same individual to whom those demands were made, and that he refused to provide either a driver’s licence or a breath sample.
4Appellant is seeking reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision on the following grounds:
(i) That the Tribunal has acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice
(ii) That the Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that it would have reached a different decision had the error not been made
(iii) That the Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the results; and
(iv) That there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier which would have affected the result.
5The Appellant is asking for the reconsideration of the decision. It is not clear from his submissions what order he asks to be made other than the order asked for and that is that the suspension of driving privileges made on May 11, 2017 be overturned.
6Pursuant 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
7A reconsideration request is not an opportunity to re-argue the same submissions that were presented at the hearing, expecting a different outcome. The Appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
8The Appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended for 90 days on May 11, 2017 pursuant to s. 48.3 of the Act. His appeal of that suspension was filed on July 10, 2017 and was heard on June 25, 2019, long after the 90-day suspension had expired.
9The issue before the Tribunal at the appeal hearing was whether the Appellant was the same individual stopped by police for an illegal turn and had failed to present his driver’s licence or provide a breath sample when asked to do so by a police officer. In the appeal hearing the Appellant insisted that although he was positively identified by photo ID, he was not the individual to whom the demands were made. He stated under oath that he believes that he is more than one person and that the person who was driving the vehicle and who refused to comply with the police requests was a different person than the person with the same name, address and photo identification that appeared before the Tribunal.
ANALYSIS
10The grounds which would allow a request for reconsideration are contained in Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, (“the Rules”). A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless an adjudicator has made a 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.
11The Appellant argues that all possible grounds apply to this case but provides no cogent evidence or argument in support of his argument. Notwithstanding, each of the grounds claimed are addressed as follows:
Jurisdiction/Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness
12Under the Act, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a suspension of a driver’s licence. It is clear from s. 48.3(1), (2) and (3) of the Act that if an individual fails to provide a driver’s licence or breath sample when asked to do so, a 90-day suspension of a licence is immediate, and there is no right to be heard before the suspension. It is also clear that under s. 50.1 of the Act that this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear appeals of suspensions under s. 48.3.
13The Appellant submits that the Tribunal’s decision violated the laws of natural justice. As noted, the Tribunal agreed to hear the appeal over two years after it was filed and after the suspension which was the subject of the appeal had expired. As the Tribunal member adjudicating the appeal, I gave the appellant full opportunity to provide oral evidence at the hearing. As noted in the appeal decision, his written submission was confused and contradictory. At the hearing he declined to cross-examine the witness for the respondent and to give evidence in chief in support of his case. He did not call any supporting witnesses. In cross examination, he confirmed that he had provided the police with a health card identifying him as the Tedroy Gomes who had failed to produce a driver’s licence or provide a breath sample, but he insisted that that individual was not the same person as the one who had filed the appeal. In answer to a specific question he confirmed that he was more than one person.
14As noted in the submission of the Respondent and in this reconsideration, the Appellant has referred to constitutional issues throughout his dealings with the Tribunal and in his written submissions on the appeal. The appeal decision makes note of the Case Conference Order of May 22, 2019, which among other things, ordered the appellant to serve a Notice of Constitutional Question as required by Rule 11 of the Rules as a prerequisite to raising constitutional issues in this matter. As the appellant did not do so, I declined to hear any constitutional argument at the appeal.
15Procedural fairness is concerned with ensuring that parties have access to a fair procedure. The Appellant has provided no argument as to how the Tribunal proceeded unfairly, nor how it exceeded jurisdiction. I therefore do not find that the Appellant has made a case for reconsideration on these grounds.
Significant Error of Law or Fact /False or Misleading Evidence Discovered After the Hearing/New Evidence
16As noted, the submission of the Appellant is disjointed and confusing. It contains no allegations or argument that an error of law or fact was made at the appeal hearing or in the decision, nor does it provide any indication of false or misleading evidence having been discovered after the hearing or of new evidence that might have a bearing on the issue of his suspended licence.
17The Respondent’s submission in this matter notes the various comments and views of the Appellant on the justice system and his place within it which constitute the substance of his request for reconsideration. However, his expression of thoughts and strong feelings on those issues do not speak to the merits of his appeal of the suspension of his driver’s licence, which was the only matter before the Tribunal on the appeal.
CONCLUSION
18For the reasons noted above, I deny the Appellant request for reconsideration.
Harriet Lewis
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario- Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division
Released: February 26, 2020