Appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 8, from a decision of the Registrar under subsection 47(1) to suspend a driver’s licence
Between:
DC
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Panel: Dr. Dimitri Louvish, Member Patricia Conway, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: DC, self-represented
For the Respondent: Sonia DeSantis agent
A. OVERVIEW
The appellant, D.C., requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s1 decision following a hearing on October 29, 2019. The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar’s order suspending the applicant’s driver’s licence.
The appellant’s request is on grounds set out in Rule 18.2 of the Tribunal’s Common rules of Practice and Procedure. Rule 18.2 requires that the party requesting reconsideration establish one or more of the following:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the Rules of procedural fairness;
b) The tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made;
c) The Tribunal heard false evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or
d) There is new evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, amd would likely have affected the result.
- The appellant’s request is based on 18.2 (a) and (d).
B. ISSUE
- The issue for determination is whether, on a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision in light of the parties’ submissions, the decision should be modified.
C. DECISION
- After considering all the evidence we confirm the Tribunal’s decision to suspend the appellant’s licence.
E. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
The appellant has put forward two grounds for reconsideration of our decision. The first is that the Tribunal failed to consider evidence that was before it and that would likely have changed the result.
The evidence the appellant refers to is a medical assessment and letter from Dr. Gawel, a neurologist, who examined the appellant on May 8, 2019 and filed a report with the Registrar stating that the appellant had no musculoskeletal condition and was not any drugs that would affect her ability to drive safely.
This report was actually before the Tribunal when we made our decision. However, this is only one of the requirements to have a license reinstated. The appellant also failed her driving assessment. So, even though the report confirmed that the appellant did not have a medical condition or was on any medications that would affect her ability to drive, the Tribunal did not have the ability to overturn the Registrar’s decision because she also failed her driving assessment, a second requirement to getting the license reinstated.
The second ground of the request for reconsideration argues that the appellant was denied procedural fairness because the functional driving assessment was conducted during a very heavy snowstorm, where lane markers were difficult to see and vision was obscured. The appellant says that on the day of the test, a warning had been issued not to drive.
The Tribunal agrees that the appellant faced these conditions and noted them in its decision. However, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the Registrar to order another functional assessment under better weather conditions. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction was to determine the issue before it There was no lack of procedural fairness by the Tribunal.
The balance of the appellant’s grounds for requesting a reconsideration fall loosely under subsection (d). First, the appellant objects to statements in Dr. Godelie’s medical assessments that the appellant is on sedatives that might impact her ability to drive safely. The appellant asserted in her evidence that this was wrong; she was not taking sedatives. The Tribunal accepted and believed the appellant’s evidence on this point. This did not and would not change the result.
The appellant also claims that she has new evidence that would change the Tribunal’s decision. At the hearing, the appellant was unable to produce the 2016 report and now seeks reconsideration on the basis of new evidence that the report exists. However, the Tribunal accepted evidence that the 2016 report exists and that it says what the appellant testified to. The further evidence that the 2016 report exists would not have affected the Tribunal’s decision.
CONCLUSION
- After carefully considering the issues raised by the appellant, the Tribunal concludes that there are no grounds for modifying the Tribunal’s decision and order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_________________________
Dr. D. Louvish
Member
_________________________
Patricia Conway
Member
Released: February 26, 2020