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 section 47(1) of the Act - to suspend a licence.
Between:
Jon F. Klaus
Applicant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Dimitri Louvish, M.D. and Evelyn Spence, LL.B.
Written Submissions By:
For the Applicant: Jon Klaus, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Sonia De Santis, Agent
A. INTRODUCTION:
1The applicant has requested reconsideration of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”)’s decision of June 10, 2021, which confirmed the suspension of his driver’s licence for medical reasons. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the applicant suffers from a medical condition, and that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.
B. RESULT:
2For the reasons that follow, and having considered the written submissions of both parties, we deny the applicant’s request for reconsideration.
C. ANALYSIS:
3A reconsideration is not an appeal nor an opportunity to re-litigate the same points presented at a hearing in search of a different result. The grounds for a request for reconsideration are limited to those 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 1 (October 2, 2017). According to that rule, a request for reconsideration will only be granted if:
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.
4The onus is on the party seeking reconsideration to establish one or more of the Rule 18 grounds for reconsideration.
5In the present case, the applicant submits that there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result. Specifically, he asserts that the Tribunal failed to contact his doctors for further clarification of his condition, including to obtain their understanding of his conversations with them.
6It is not the role of the Tribunal to solicit information on behalf of parties, and it would be wholly unreasonable and inappropriate for the Tribunal to contact the applicant’s physicians in this case, as he suggests it should have done. The applicant had the opportunity to collect and present medical evidence in support of his position, and the fact that he did not do so does not amount to a ground for reconsideration on the basis of new information.
7As noted in the Case Conference Report and Order (“Order”), dated April 23, 2021 at paragraph 15, the applicant stated in pre-hearing discussions that he might call his family physician as a witness. It was his right and duty to call such evidence if there was additional information they could provide and that he wished to rely upon, and this statement in the Order suggests to us that he was aware of this right and duty.
8Moreover, the applicant, even in his reconsideration request, did not provide any additional information or evidence upon which the Tribunal could reasonably consider. To meet the high onus required to obtain reconsideration of a decision, a requester must provide some evidence and argument to the Tribunal. The applicant in this case has provided neither. A party is not entitled to reconsideration simply because it asserts an order is in error; it must provide evidence and/or arguments supporting that assertion.
9The applicant did file post-hearing submissions, comprising an audiogram report from 2019, which we accepted and considered in our reasons for decision, despite that the report related to information that the applicant would have had or could have obtained prior to the hearing. Ultimately, however, we found that the report did not change our conclusion on the outcome of the appeal.
D. CONCLUSION:
10Reconsideration is only warranted in specific and limited cases where the Tribunal has either made a significant procedural, 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. It is not available in situations where the evidence was available and could be obtained in time for the hearing, but for the applicant’s failure to do so.
11The grounds for reconsideration in Rule 18.2(d) have therefore not been met in the present case and the Tribunal’s decision does not warrant reconsideration.
12Although the applicant’s reconsideration request has failed, the applicant is reminded that he is not permanently precluded from having his licence reinstated. If the applicant submits a functional driving assessment or otherwise is able to submit new medical evidence to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles that supports the conclusion that he does not have a condition that would impact his driving ability, the applicant’s licence may be reinstated based on that new information.
E. ORDER:
13Upon considering the submissions of the parties, and for the reasons noted above, the Tribunal denies the applicant’s request for reconsideration.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
____________________________
Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member
____________________________
Evelyn Spence, LL.B. Member
Released: August 30, 2021