Celine T-L Robinson v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Avril A. Farlam, Vice Chair
Tribunal File Number: 15035/MVIA
Case Name: Celine T-L Robinson v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Celine T-L Robinson, Self-Represented
For the Respondent: Andrew Sookhoo, Representative
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration was filed by Celine T-L Robinson (“appellant”) in regards to the LAT’s July 28, 2023 decision (“Decision”) in which I confirmed the 45-day impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle made by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“respondent”) under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).
2The appellant submits that the Decision is wrong and is “false” because I misunderstood her testimony and the hearing and also makes submissions about her employment situation and health as a result of the impoundment.
RESULT
3For the reasons given below, the appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
4For reconsiderations of LAT decisions released before August 21, 2023, the grounds for a request for reconsideration are contained in Rule 18 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice & Procedure, October 2, 2017, as amended (the “Rules”).
5The appellant makes her reconsideration request under Rule 18.2 (b), which is 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. She also relies on Rule 18.2 (d), which is that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, that could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it and would likely have affected the result.
6If the grounds under Rule 18 are not met, then the Tribunal is unable to grant a reconsideration. 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.
7In summary, the appellant indicates in her Request for Reconsideration Form that I made errors of fact and law and refers to parts of the Decision variously as “BIG FALSE FACT/LIE” and “false.”
8The appellant makes lengthy submissions in her initial reconsideration submissions and in her reply reconsideration submissions including the following:
She does not have alternatives available to her impounded vehicle. She does not have friends to help drive her, does not have access to her mother’s vehicle, and uber is pricey, as is renting a vehicle. Further, she has not had rides provided “occasionally”, she does not like to take public transportation because she is afraid due to having been sexually assaulted on public transportation;
She has been depressed and suicidal, done self-harm, and experienced “worst” mental health issues due to her vehicle being impounded;
She has experienced financial and employment loss due to the impoundment of her vehicle and has now been fired from her job due to her vehicle being impounded.
She would have had dental work done and laser treatment if her vehicle had not been impounded. Further, her mother has not taken her to the hospital and she had to wait one hour for an ambulance;
She is in pain due to hemorrhoids and “currently going through a pregnancy/miscarriage since” the impoundment, and her mother is the one who said not to take her prescribed medication and will not take her to the hospital.
Both of her dogs are due for vet appointments and she needs her vehicle to take her dogs to the vet;
9The appellant further submits that she cannot afford the impound fees and needs it “reduced and these false statements looked over.”
10The appellant did not bring forward any new evidence in support of her reconsideration submissions.
11In response, the respondent submits that the request for reconsideration of the appellant be denied because the appellant has not satisfied the criteria for a reconsideration request under Rule 18 of the Rules, has not identified any error of law or fact, and there is no new evidence submitted that would likely have affected the result.
Error of Law or Fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made
12After review of the Decision, I find no errors of law or fact in the Decision.
13The appellant has not explained how the Tribunal made an error of law or fact other than simply saying that what was in the Decision was “false”. The submissions the appellant did make on reconsideration are largely a restatement of what was already adjudicated in her original appeal.
14The appellant has not shown how or why this criteria would apply to the Decision. Instead, she denies her sworn testimony at the hearing, suggests that I misunderstood statements that she made, and disputes that she has alternative means of transportation.
15That the appellant did not exercise due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s license of the driver of the vehicle at the time of impoundment was not under suspension as set out in paragraph 7 of the Decision is based on the appellant’s testimony at the hearing as summarized in paragraphs 9 and 10 and the law as set out in paragraphs 7 and 10.
16That the appellant has alternative means of transportation during the impoundment period as set out in paragraph 25 of the Decision is based on the appellant’s testimony at the hearing as summarized in paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, all which testimony was fully and fairly considered.
17The appellant testified and made submissions at the hearing regarding most of the matters raised on reconsideration, put slightly differently, and her grounds for appeal were found lacking for the reasons set out in paragraph 25 of the Decision based on the law as set out in paragraphs 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Decision.
18Reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue one’s case in a new way.
19There are no “lies” or factual mistakes or misapprehension in the Decision. What is contained in the Decision is a direct reflection of the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the hearing. Having reviewed the Decision, I find that I did not misapprehend any of the evidence or write the reasons in a deceitful or unclear way.
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.
20The appellant has not put forward any new evidence on reconsideration.
21Instead, the appellant has made submissions on several new issues that she did not raise at the hearing as set out below, none of which are supported by any new evidence.
22Although the appellant submits on reconsideration that her mental health has worsened since her vehicle was impounded, this was already brought forward by the appellant in her testimony at the hearing as set out in paragraph 21 of the Decision. At the hearing, there was no documentary or corroborating evidence put forward by the appellant or any qualified medical professional to establish this. On reconsideration there is no new evidence on this point.
23Although the appellant submits on reconsideration that she has now been fired from her part-time job due to her vehicle being impounded, this is contrary to her testimony at the hearing as set out in paragraph 17 of the Decision. On reconsideration there is no new evidence on this point. Even if there had been, given that the appellant also is self-employed, the loss of her part-time employment would not likely have affected the result in the Decision.
24Although the appellant submits that she is “currently going through a pregnancy/miscarriage” which she appears to attribute to the impoundment, again, on reconsideration, there is no new evidence on this point. Even if there had been, this medical issue would not likely have affected the result in the Decision.
25Any further information the appellant wished to put forward about her health or part-time employment situation could have been obtained prior to the hearing. More importantly, further information about the appellant’s health or part-time employment, even if established on reconsideration, which it has not been, would not have affected the result in my Decision given the transportation alternatives available to the appellant during the impoundment period.
26The appellant also submits that she cannot afford the impound fee and needs it “reduced and these false statements looked over.” On reconsideration, there is no new evidence on these points. The appellant has not explained what statements are false and why.
27With respect to the appellant’s financial situation, the Tribunal has no power under the Act to reduce the impound fees. Further, I find that no false statements were made in the Decision, only a result that the appellant disagrees with.
28Dissatisfaction with the result contained in the Decision does not establish that an error of law or fact was made such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. Nor does it establish that the appellant has evidence that was not before me when rendering my decision, or that could not have been previously provided by the appellant, which would likely have affected the result.
29I find that the appellant has not established her grounds for reconsideration. The grounds for reconsideration of a Tribunal Decision are limited, specific and their purpose is to correct errors. In order to succeed on a reconsideration request, at least one of the grounds must be proven. Because the appellant has requested reconsideration, the onus is on her to establish her grounds and she has failed to do so. The appellant’s reconsideration submissions appear to be an attempt to reargue her case in a new way. Dissatisfaction with the Decision is not a ground of reconsideration. The Tribunal has long recognized that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue one’s case,1 nor is it a hearing de novo or an appeal.2
CONCLUSION & ORDER
30For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the appellant’s request for reconsideration of my Decision.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Avril A. Farlam
Vice Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: October 16, 2023
Footnotes
- N.D. v. Aviva Insurance Company, 2021 CanLII 64232; N.R. v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2020 CanLII 101753; Gore. Rusk, 2022 ONSC 2893 at para. 50 (Div. Crt).
- Warren v. Licence Appeal Tribunal, 2022 ONSC 3741 at para. 22 (Div. Crt.).