Syed Husain v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2021 CanLII 28684

Date: 2021-03-22

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:

Syed Husain

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

D. Stephen Jovanovic, Associate Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Syed Husain, Appellant

Date of Order

March 22, 2021

1In a decision dated July 9, 2020, the Tribunal confirmed the impoundment of the appellant’s motor vehicle on April 11, 2020 for driving while his licence was suspended. The appellant delivered a request for reconsideration of that decision on January 30, 2021.

2Under rule 18.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice & Procedure a request for reconsideration shall not be granted unless one or more of the following criteria are met:

• The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;

• 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;

• The Tribunal heard false evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or

• There is 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, and would likely have affected the result.

3The appellant’s request indicated that he was relying on the second and fourth criteria. However, under rule 18.1 the request must be made within 21 days of the decision and must include all of the submissions in support of the request.

4The appellant delivered a Notice of Motion dated February 10, 2021 requesting an order extending the time for the delivery of his request for reconsideration on the basis that he was now aware of the 21 day requirement.

5The appellant’s request was delivered almost six months late. In my view his professed lack of knowledge of the Tribunal’s rules is not a sufficient basis to extend the time for the delivery of his request for reconsideration. There is also is no merit to the request. The appellant essentially argued that the Tribunal “incorrectly” downplayed the risk to him of having to travel to work by public transportation during the Covid-19 pandemic and should have set aside the impoundment on the basis of exceptional hardship. I simply note that as of the date of the Tribunal’s decision confirming the impoundment, the appellant had already recovered his motor vehicle as 45 day impoundment period had ended.

ORDER

6The request for reconsideration is dismissed.