Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14852/MED

An 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 to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 32(5) of the Act.

Between:

Patrick Davis

Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

Dismissal Order

VICE-CHAIR: Colin Osterberg

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Patrick Davis, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

HEARD: In Writing

OVERVIEW

1Patrick Davis, the appellant, appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the "Registrar") to suspend his Class G driver's licence.

2By letter dated November 24, 2022, the Registrar advised the appellant that his driver's licence was suspended pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act ("Act") for failing to meet mandatory vision standards.

3On April 26, 2023, the appellant appealed the suspension to the Tribunal.

4The Registrar takes the position that since the appellant's suspension was pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act for failing to meet the mandatory vision standards, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal and requests that the appeal be dismissed.

5The appellant takes the position that the Registrar failed to follow the proper procedure before suspending his driver's licence. He argues that the Tribunal was established by the Legislature to ensure that drivers' rights are protected and that that is the only way "that bad law can be made good." The appellant alleges that the Tribunal is obligated to ensure the appellant's "right of due process" is protected which he says entitles him to a hearing where he can adduce evidence in support of his position that his licence should not be suspended.

6On June 21, 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 or not the appeal should be dismissed under Rule 3.4(b) of the Rules. The parties made submissions in accordance with the NOID.

ISSUES

7The issue in dispute is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

RESULT

8I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal related to the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence under subsection 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction

9The 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.

10In other words, the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hold hearings and to determine matters under appeal is restricted to those matters set out in legislation.

11The Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions made under s. 32(5) of the Act is set out in s. 50(1) which provides that a person may appeal "a decision of the Minister made under subsection 32(5) for which there is a right of appeal pursuant to a regulation made under clause 32(14)(n)" to the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear appeals from a decision of the Minister if there has been a regulation passed under the Act which states that the decision is subject to a right of appeal to the Tribunal.

12Ontario Regulation 340/94 ("O. Reg. 340/94") under the Act sets out which decisions made under subsection 32(5) are subject to a right of appeal for the purposes of s. 50(1). Section 25.1 of O. Reg 340/94 states that "a decision made by the Minister under subclause 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act is prescribed as a kind of decision a person may appeal under section 50 of the Act."

13There is no regulatory provision that creates a similar right to appeal a decision to suspend a driver's licence made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act. Absent express regulatory authority permitting appeals under s. 32(5)(b)(ii), the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals with respect to decisions made under that section of the Act.

14Although the appellant describes his position as a matter of due process, his argument is essentially that, by not allowing him the opportunity to be heard before the Tribunal, he is being denied procedural fairness.

15The appellant is correct in his assertion that the Registrar and the Tribunal are required to ensure that the appellant's right to procedural fairness is not breached when decisions are made within each tribunal's jurisdiction. However, the requirement of procedural fairness does not act to create jurisdiction in the Tribunal where that jurisdiction is not granted by the statute in question.

16The case of R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22 ("R. v. Conway") established that an administrative tribunal is a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter"), but the tribunal's jurisdiction to decide whether a person's Charter rights have been breached is dependant on the tribunal having jurisdiction to hear an appeal and to grant a remedy under its authorizing statute.

17In J.V. v. Minister of Transportation, 2019 CanLII 110099 (ON LAT), the Tribunal held that, based on the decision in R. v. Conway, since the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear appeals under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act, it does not have jurisdiction to address the appellant's allegation that failing to conduct a hearing in his appeal of a decision made under that section violated his rights under the Charter.

18Similarly, in the present case, I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act and therefore does not have jurisdiction to address the appellant's claim that he has been denied procedural fairness based on the fact that he was not afforded a hearing by the Registrar and 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.

Colin Osterberg

Vice-Chair