Petronella McNorgan v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 65804

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14882/MED

In the matter of appeals 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 require satisfactory completion of a driver’s re-examination and from a decision to cancel a driver’s licence pursuant to ss. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act.

Between:

Petronella McNorgan

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

MOTION ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Petronella McNorgan, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

Heard in writing:

July 14, 2023

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

1Petronella McNorgan, (“the appellant”) appeals two decisions of the Minister of Transportation (the “Minister”), namely the requirement for her to complete a satisfactory driver’s re-examination and the cancellation of her driver’s licence.

2By letter dated November 7, 2022, the Minister advised the appellant that, pursuant to s. 32(5) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”), she was required to submit to examinations consisting of vision screening, knowledge test and a level two road test, and that if she failed to successfully complete the examinations within 60 days from the date of the letter, her driver’s licence would be cancelled in accordance with s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the HTA.

3The appellant failed to complete the examinations and, by letter dated May 1, 2023, the Minister cancelled the appellant’s driver’s licence pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the HTA.

4The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with respect to the decision of the Minister to require her to submit to the examinations and also with respect to its decision to cancel her driver’s licence.

5The respondent’s position is that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the issues raised in the appeal.

6A case conference was held by teleconference on May 23, 2023, at which Tribunal member, Dr. Erica Weinberg, ordered that the respondent bring a motion for the determination of the following issues:

1. whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of the Minister to require the appellant to submit to the examinations under s. 32(5) of the HTA; and

2. whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of the Minister to cancel the appellant’s driver’s licence under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the HTA.

7On June 6, 2023, in accordance with the order made at the case conference, the respondent served its Notice of Motion requesting an order of the Tribunal dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

8The appellant was required by the order made at the case conference to serve and file materials in response to the motion within five days of the service of the respondent’s motion material. To date, the appellant has failed to file any responding material.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction

9The Tribunal gets its jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions made under s. 32(5) of the HTA from 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 only has jurisdiction to hear appeals from a decision of the Minister if there has been a regulation passed under the HTA which states that the decision is subject to a right of appeal to the Tribunal.

10Ontario Regulation 340/94 (“O. Reg. 340/94”) 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.”

11There is no regulatory provision that creates a similar right to appeal a decision to require an examination made under s. 32(5), or a decision to cancel a driver’s licence made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the HTA. Absent express regulatory authority permitting appeals under s. 32(5) or s. 32(5)(b)(ii), the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals with respect to decisions made under those sections of the HTA.

12In the present case, the decision of the Minister to require the appellant to submit to examinations was made under s. 32(5) of the HTA, and therefore the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal with respect to that decision.

13The decision of the Minister to cancel the appellant’s driver’s licence was made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the HTA, and therefore the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and appeal with respect to that decision.

CONCLUSION

14The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal.

ORDER

15The appeal is dismissed.