Sean Hart v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 116479

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Dr. Erica Weinberg, Adjudicator

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15127/MED

Case Name: Sean Hart v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Written Submissions by:

For the Appellant: Sean Hart, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Representative

OVERVIEW

1On September 27, 2023, the appellant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated September 19, 2023 (“decision”).

2In the decision, the Tribunal found that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) had satisfied its burden of proof that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. The Tribunal therefore confirmed the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s licence.

3The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:

a. The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach 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; or

c. 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 appellant seeks reconsideration under Rule 18.2a. The appellant submits that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness. As set out below, the first issue raised by the appellant is not a matter of jurisdiction or procedural fairness and I have reviewed this issue under Rule 18.2c, and determined whether there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the appellant who is now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the results. Furthermore, as set out below, the other three issues raised by the appellant are also not matters of jurisdiction or procedural fairness and I have reviewed those issues under Rule 18.2b, and determined whether there have been errors of fact or law which warrant reconsideration. The respondent submits that the appellant has not established grounds for reconsideration, and notes that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue submissions already made at a hearing.

5The appellant does not state the relief being requested. According to Rule 18.4 of the Rules, upon reconsideration, the Tribunal may confirm, vary, or cancel the decision. It also may order a rehearing on all or part of the matter. Since I have found that the appellant has failed to establish grounds for reconsideration, I need not consider the appropriate relief had the appellant’s request been successful.

RESULT

6The appellant has failed to establish for their first issue raised that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the appellant who is now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result. The appellant has also failed to establish for their remaining issues raised that 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. I confirm the decision.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

7Rule 18.1 provides that the request for reconsideration must include all submissions in support of the request. In this case, the appellant indicated on their Request for Reconsideration form that a letter confirming their graduation from ADAPT “is to follow”. The Tribunal’s September 28, 2023 Reconsideration Order (“Order”) provided the appellant until October 10, 2023 to file this letter with the Tribunal, with a copy provided to the respondent.

8The appellant filed their further submissions on October 18, 2023, outside the timeline indicated in the Order, and did not seek or receive the Tribunal’s consent for late submissions.

9On October 20, 2023, the Tribunal received an email from the respondent asking if the Tribunal would be accepting the late submissions from the appellant.

10I have reviewed the appellant’s submissions and find that there is no prejudice to the respondent. The contents of the late submission did not impact the outcome. I have included the appellant’s late-filed submissions in my analysis.

11On October 25, 2023 the respondent filed their submission within the timeline indicated in the Order. However, the respondent failed to comply with the page limit and line spacing indicated in the Order by submitting three (3) single-spaced pages rather than two (2) double-spaced pages, and did not seek or receive the Tribunal’s consent for a higher page limit.

12As the appellant did not file a reply submission, I find that the appellant has not objected to the submissions, and I find they do not prejudice the appellant. I have included the full contents of the respondent’s submission in my analysis.

ANALYSIS

13The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, or with the weight assigned to the evidence. The requestor must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.

14The appellant raised four specific issues which they allege amount to grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2a. Those are:

a) the appellant seeks to introduce evidence regarding their graduation from ADAPT (Alcohol, Drug and Gambling Assessment Prevention and Treatment), which they could not obtain previously, and which they believe would likely have affected the result of the Tribunal’s decision;

b) the Tribunal should have, and failed to, take into consideration their solution of an Interlock device;

c) the Tribunal failed to consider that the CCMTA Standards (Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021]) do not state a specific time period required for remission; and

d) the Tribunal failed to consider that the suspension of the appellant’s driver’s licence will result in the loss of their career.

15Although the appellant seeks reconsideration under Rule 18.2a., these alleged errors, if proven, are not matters of jurisdiction or procedural fairness. The first issue may, if proven, amount to the appellant seeking to introduce evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by them, and would likely have affected the result. I will consider this issue under Rule 18.2c. The remaining issues may, if proven, amount to errors of fact or law and I will consider these issues under Rule 18.2b.

The appellant has failed to establish that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the appellant who is seeking to introduce it, and that would likely have affected the result

16The appellant seeks to introduce evidence regarding their graduation from ADAPT, which they could not obtain previously, and which they believe would likely have affected the results of the Tribunal’s decision.

17The evidence that the appellant is seeking to introduce would not likely have affected the result.

18The appellant argues that the October 2, 2023 updated letter indicating their graduation from ADAPT and which they seek to introduce, would likely have affected the results of the Tribunal’s decision.

19I disagree. The appellant was given the opportunity to provide documentary and oral evidence regarding ADAPT at the hearing. The appellant’s documentary evidence included an August 16, 2023 letter from ADAPT which referenced the appellant’s progress and Dr. K.’s August 14, 2023 note which stated that the appellant continues to attend ADAPT, and the appellant provided oral testimony regarding ADAPT. I find that that the updated letter from ADAPT the appellant is seeking to introduce would not have affected the Tribunal’s decision. It is clear from the decision at paragraph 28, that the Tribunal accepted the evidence that the appellant had or would soon complete ADAPT as recommended.

20Accordingly, I find the appellant has not established grounds for reconsideration that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision that would likely have affected the result.

The appellant has failed to establish that 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

Not taking into consideration the appellant’s solution of an Interlock device.

21The Tribunal did not make an error of law or fact such that it would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.

22The appellant argues that the Tribunal erred by not taking into consideration the appellant’s solution of an Interlock device.

23I disagree. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction in cases such as the appellant’s comes primarily from s. 50 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 8 (the “Act”). As stated in the decision at paragraphs 4 and 5, the appellant appealed the suspension of their driver’s licence under s. 50(1) of the Act and after a hearing, pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Act, the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar made under s. 47 of the Act. Whether or not a driver is permitted to drive only vehicles with an interlock device, is not a decision or order made under s. 47 and the Tribunal’s authority to modify a decision of the Registrar under s. 47 does not include the authority to order the installation of an Interlock device. Thus, while the appellant’s documentary evidence and oral evidence included information regarding the appellant’s solution of an Interlock device, and the Tribunal found the appellant’s solution interesting, it would not have been within the Tribunal’s authority to impose an Interlock device on their driver’s licence. I find the Tribunal considered and addressed the issues in dispute in its decision (paragraphs 6 and 7) and reached its conclusion based on the evidence and the law.

24Accordingly, I find the appellant has not established grounds for reconsideration with respect to the Tribunal not taking into consideration the appellant’s solution of an Interlock device.

The CCMTA Standards do not state a specific time period required for remission.

25The Tribunal did not make an error of law or fact such that it would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.

26The appellant argues that the Tribunal erred by failing to consider that the CCMTA Standards do not state a specific time period required for remission.

27I disagree. The onus is on the appellant to establish grounds for reconsideration and they have not put forward any submissions that indicate that the Tribunal erred by failing to consider that the CCMTA Standards do not state a specific time period required for remission.

28Furthermore, I find that the Tribunal addressed the CCMTA Standards in its decision at paragraphs 23, 24, 26, 27 and 28. Paragraph 23 of the decision refers to the CCMTA Standards and the applicable law for both the respondent and the Tribunal. Paragraph 28 specifically addresses the fact that the CCMTA Standards do not state a specific time period required for remission.

29Accordingly, I find the appellant has not established grounds for reconsideration with respect to the CCMTA Standards not stating a specific time period required for remission.

Not taking into consideration the appellant’s loss of career.

30The Tribunal did not make an error of law or fact such that it would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.

31The appellant argues that the Tribunal erred by not taking into consideration the appellant’s loss of career.

32I disagree. The appellant has not put forward any submissions that would indicate that the Tribunal erred by not taking into consideration the appellant’s career.

33While I agree that the decision makes no reference of the appellant’s career and the effect that the suspension of their driver’s licence is having on it, the Tribunal is not required to refer to every piece of evidence in the course of its decision. Moreover, the appellant does not explain, nor do I find, how the impact the suspension of their licence has on their career is relevant to the issue to be determined by the Tribunal which is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle. I find the Tribunal considered and addressed the issues in dispute and reached its conclusion based on the evidence and the law.

34Accordingly, I find the appellant has not established grounds for reconsideration with respect to not taking into consideration the appellant’s loss of career.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

35For the reasons set out above, the appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed and the decision is confirmed.

Erica Weinberg

Adjudicator

Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal