Dani Herea v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2021 CanLII 76761

Date: 2021-08-10

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 pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Act to Suspend a Licence

Between:

Dani Herea

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Panel: Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Adjudicator Laura Hodgson, Adjudicator

Appearances: For the Appellant: self-represented For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview:

1The Appellant requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision following a hearing on April 23, 2021. In a decision dated May 5, 2021, the Tribunal confirmed the Registrar’s order suspending the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.

2The appellant now requests reconsideration of this decision based on new evidence.

3For the reasons set out below, the request for reconsideration is denied.

ANALYSIS

4The criteria for granting reconsideration are set out in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I October 2, 2017. A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one or more of the following criteria are met:

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 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.

5A reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue issues canvassed at the hearing. The onus is on the moving part to identify a significant legal or evidentiary mistake, where false evidence has been admitted, or where genuinely new and undiscoverable evidence comes to light after a hearing. It is not an opportunity to submit new evidence that was reasonably available at the time of the hearing but was not presented for whatever reason.

6The appellant relies on the criteria set out in subsection (d) and has provided additional evidence for consideration. The evidence consists of a Substance Use Assessment Form completed by the appellant’s new family physician on May 10, 2021, and two Mp4 files detailing acute mental health incidents that occurred in 2020.

7As noted at paragraph two of the Tribunal’s May 5, 2021 decision confirming the appellant’s licence suspension, the appellant was given the opportunity to adjourn proceedings to have the requested Substance Use Form completed. He declined and chose to proceed with the hearing. There is no explanation as to why the form was only completed after the Tribunal rendered its decision or why the applicant chose to proceed with the hearing. There is no indication that the information in the Mp4 files could not reasonably have been obtained prior to the hearing.

8It is also unclear that the new evidence would have “likely affected the result”. The information on the Mp4 files document the appellant’s “bizarre behaviour”, threats and history of substance use. While the Substance Use Assessment Form, completed by the Appellant’s new family doctor, indicates that he does not now have a substance use disorder it also indicates that he has abstained for less than six months.

9The criteria for reconsideration set out in Rule 18.2 (d) has not been met and the applicant’s reconsideration request is denied. The appellant is not precluded from submitting new medical information directly to the Registrar for review. The appellant is encouraged to follow the process outlined by the Registrar in its letter dated August 5, 2020, in order to regain his licence.

ORDER

10The request for reconsideration is denied.