Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14962/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.

Between:

Seun Oyewole

Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

MOTION DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Colin Osterberg

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Seun Oyewole, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

HEARD: In Writing

OVERVIEW

1This is a motion for the determination of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction with respect to an appeal of a driver’s licence suspension.

2Seun Oyewole, the appellant, appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to suspend his Class G driver’s licence.

3By letter dated April 26, 2018, the Registrar suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) on the basis that the appellant was suffering from a medical condition that may make it unsafe for the appellant to operate a motor vehicle.

4By letter dated January 11, 2019, the Registrar suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act for failing to meet the mandatory vision standards as set out in O.Reg 340/94 under the Act (the “Regulation”).

5On June 13, 2023, the appellant appealed the suspension of his licence to the Tribunal. His Notice of Appeal states that he is appealing the suspension under s. 47(1) of the Act as described in the April 26, 2018 letter from the Registrar.

6The Registrar takes the position that the suspension under s. 47(1) of the Act described in the April 26, 2018 letter is no longer in effect and the only suspension currently in effect is the January 11, 2019 suspension. It argues that since that 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.

7In support of its position, the Registrar has submitted in evidence its Extended Driver Record Search dated July 13, 2023 from the Ministry of Transportation with respect to the appellant. That document shows that on that date, the only suspension in effect with respect to the appellant’s licence is the suspension dated January 11, 2019, which is described in that document as “Suspended until a satisfactory eye certificate is received”.

8The appellant says that he is currently suspended under s. 47(1) of the Act as described in the April 26, 2018 notice letter. He says he has never received a letter from the Registrar telling him that this suspension has ended and the failed eye test which resulted in the suspension under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act was requested by the same doctor whose letter to the Registrar resulted in the earlier medical condition suspension.

ISSUES

9The issue in dispute is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

RESULT

10I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal since it is related to the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence under subsection 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act. The appeal is therefore dismissed because of this lack of jurisdiction.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction

11The 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.

12In other words, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hold hearings and to determine matters under appeal is restricted to those matters set out in legislation.

13The parties agree that s. 50(1) of the Act grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to determine appeals brought pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Act. Section 50(1) also 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.

14Ontario 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.”

15There 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.

16I accept the Registrar’s submission that the appellant’s driver’s licence is currently suspended pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) and not under s. 47(1) of the Act. The Extended Driver Record Search dated July 13, 2023, shows that the appellant’s licence was not at that time suspended due to a medical condition and shows only the January 11, 2019 suspension related to the failed vision test.

17It may be that the appellant came to the attention of the Registrar and the vision testing was conducted as part of the investigation of the appellant’s medical condition related to the April 26, 2018 suspension, however that does not change the fact that the current suspension is under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) and not under s. 47(1) of the Act.

18Given that the appellant’s licence is no longer suspended pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Act, his appeal of the suspension under that section is moot since an order of the Tribunal with respect to that suspension would be of no practical effect to the rights of the parties: See Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), 1989 CanLii 123 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342 at 353.

19I find that the appellant’s licence is currently suspended pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act.

20I find that the appellant’s appeal of the s. 47(1) suspension is moot.

Conclusion

21The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal.

ORDER

22The appeal is dismissed.