Licence Appeal Tribunal

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14486/MED

In the matter of an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Anas Alahdab

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dr. Katie Awad, Member Colin Osterberg, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

No-one appearing,

For the Respondent:

Steve Grootenboer, Representative

HEARD: March 1, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Anas Alahdab (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to suspend his driver’s licence for medical reasons effective September 26, 2022.

2Based on a report of the appellant’s family doctor dated February 16, 2023, the Registrar reinstated the appellant’s driver’s licence on February 17, 2023.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

3The Registrar takes the position that the appeal is now moot since an order of the Tribunal would be of no practical effect.

4The appellant did not appear at the hearing. We are satisfied that he was properly notified of the hearing date and time by Notice of Hearing sent to him by the Tribunal on February 7, 2023. At the hearing, the Tribunal attempted to contact the appellant by telephone and received no answer. The hearing proceeded in his absence.

5The Registrar filed with the Tribunal its letter to the appellant dated February 17, 2023, telling him that his licence was to be reinstated, and the Registrar advised the Tribunal that the appellant’s licence was, in fact, reinstated on that date and remains valid.

6Under s. 50(2) of the Act, following a hearing the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the Registrar’s order suspending the appellant’s licence for medical reasons.

7In Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 123 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342 at 353 (“Borowski”), the Supreme Court of Canada held that a matter will be considered moot where deciding it will have no practical effect on the rights of the parties because there is no longer any “live controversy” between them.

8The Court in Borowski also holds that a court (or, in this case a tribunal) may exercise its discretion to adjudicate a moot matter despite the absence of a live controversy if the circumstances warrant it. The onus is on the appellant to satisfy this Tribunal to exercise that discretion to adjudicate a moot matter.

9In the present case, there is no longer any suspension in effect and an order of the Tribunal would have no practical effect on the rights of the parties. We find that the appeal is moot. Since the appellant did not appear at the hearing, no submissions were made that the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to hear the appeal and we decline to exercise such discretion.

ORDER

10For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL

__________________________

Dr. Katie Awad Adjudicator

__________________________

Colin Osterberg Vice-Chair