Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15284/TSSEA

An appeal under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, Sched. 3, from a Refusal to Issue a Tow Driver Certificate under the Act.

Between:

Pietro Puma

Appellant

-and-

Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards

Respondent

Dismissal Order

VICE-CHAIR: Colin Osterberg

HEARD: In Writing

OVERVIEW

1Pietro Puma (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards (the “Director”) to refuse to issue a Tow Driver Certificate to the appellant under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, Sched. 3 (the “Act”).

2On August 2, 2023, the Director issued a Refusal to Issue a Tow Driver Certificate (“Refusal”). The Refusal was stated to be as the result of a Criminal Record Check indicating a disqualifying record of convictions or charges within the meaning of s. 2 of O. Reg. 167/23 (the “Regulation”) under the Act.

3The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Tribunal alleging that although he does not disagree with the application of s. 2 of the Regulation, the Director’s application of that section in his circumstances is contrary to the intention of the legislation.

4On November 23, 2023, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) to the parties stating that the Tribunal intended to dismiss the appeal without a hearing pursuant to Rule 3.4(b) of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) since it appeared that the appeal relates to matters that are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The parties were invited to make written submissions regarding whether the appeal should be dismissed under Rule 3.4(b) of the Rules. The appellant made submissions in accordance with the NOID. The respondent did not make submissions.

ISSUES

5The issue in dispute is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

RESULT

6I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal related to the Director’s refusal to issuance a certificate pursuant to s. 16 of the Regulation. Since the Director’s decision was made pursuant to s. 16 of the Regulation, there is no appeal to the Tribunal and no entitlement to a hearing.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction

7The Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G (“LAT Act”), sets out the duties and powers of the Tribunal. Specifically, s. 3(1) of the LAT Act provides that:

The Tribunal shall hold the hearings and perform the other duties that are assigned to it by or under the Act or regulation.

8In other words, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hold hearings and to determine matters under appeal is restricted to those matters set out in legislation.

9Under s. 5(1)(a) of the Act, the Director shall refuse to issue or renew a certificate in the prescribed circumstances. The prescribed circumstances in which a Director is required to refuse the issuance of a certificate are set out in s. 16 of the Regulation, and provides that the Director shall refuse to issue a tow driver’s certificate under clause 5(3)(a) of the Act if, among other things, the applicant did not meet the qualification or requirement set out in paragraph 4 of subsection 15(1) on the date the application was made or the certificate issued. The qualification and requirement set out in paragraph 4 of subsection 15(1) is that the applicant does not have a disqualifying record of convictions or charges as described in section 2 of the Regulation.

10Since the allegation is that the appellant has a disqualifying record of convictions described in section 2 of the Regulation, which the appellant does not dispute, the appellant did not meet the qualification set out in paragraph 4 of s. 15(1) and, pursuant to s. 16(1)1., the Director is required to refuse to issue a tow driver’s certificate to the appellant under s. 5(3)(a) of the Act.

11Section 16(9) of the Regulation provides that there is no right to appeal a decision of the Director under s. 16.

12The appellant argues that, even though the Director’s decision to refuse a tow driver’s certificate is not appealable according to s. 16(9) of the Act, the Tribunal continues to have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (the “SPPA”) and the LAT Act.

13The appellant argues that the SPPA is to be liberally construed and applies to proceedings where a tribunal is required to hold a hearing before making a decision. He says that Rule 3.4 conflicts with the SPPA in that it purports to permit the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal without a hearing.

14The appellant’s argument is that the SPPA provides for a right to a hearing and that the Rules, since they purport to allow for a dismissal without a hearing, are in conflict with the SPPA and that the SPPA governs. I disagree.

15The SPPA does not create a right to a hearing. The SPPA sets out procedural requirements for matters where a statute or law requires a hearing. In the present case, the Act does not require a hearing in the appellant’s circumstances, but instead provides that there may be no appeal and therefore no hearing. The SPPA does not create a right to appeal where the underlying statute, the Act, specifically states that there is no right to an appeal.

16The appellant also argues that the LAT Act gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to conduct a hearing in the present appeal. He argues that, since s. 11 of the LAT Act was amended to include appeals from decisions by the Director under the Act, any decision of the Director, including one under s. 16(9) is appealable to the Tribunal. I disagree.

17Section 11 of the LAT Act does not create a right of appeal under the statutes listed. It provides that appeals of decisions of the Tribunal made pursuant to various statutes, including the Act, may be made to the Divisional Court. The provisions of the LAT Act do not support the appellant’s position. As stated above, according to the LAT Act, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hold hearings and to determine matters under appeal is restricted to those matters set out in legislation.

18In the present case, the Director’s decision is under s. 16 of the Regulation. Section 16(9) of the Regulation states that there is no right of appeal with respect to a decision of the Director under s. 16. Since the scope and mandate of the Tribunal’s authority under the Act and Regulation specifically excludes decisions made by the Director under s. 16 of the Regulation, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction with respect to that decision and the appellant is not entitled to a hearing by the Tribunal.

Conclusion

19The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal.

ORDER

20The appeal is dismissed.