RECONSIDERATION ORDER
Before: E. Louise Logan Vice-Chair, Delegate
Date of Order: October 17, 2023
Tribunal File Number: 14960/PCCA
Case Name: Haulage Network Driving Academy Inc. o/a Haulage Network Driving Academy v. Superintendent, Private Career Colleges Act, 2005
For the Appellant: Justin M. Jakubiak, Counsel
ORDER
1The appellant filed a request for reconsideration on October 16, 2023, in respect of the Adjournment Order of Adjudicator Christopher Evans (“Order”) dated October 13, 2023. The Order denied the appellant’s request for adjournment of a videoconference hearing that is scheduled to take place on October 23-27 and 30-31, 2023.
2Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5, the Executive Chair has delegated to me authority to deal with such matters.
3Rule 18.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”) provides that the Tribunal may reconsider any decision that finally disposes of an appeal if the request for reconsideration is made within 21 days of the date of the decision. In this case, although the request was made within the 21-day deadline, the Order is not a decision that finally disposes of an appeal. The proceeding in this matter remains ongoing with a videoconference hearing scheduled to begin on October 23, 2023. Accordingly, I find the appellant’s reconsideration request does not meet the requirements of Rule 18.1.
4In its submissions, the appellant submits that the request for reconsideration is made “notwithstanding the language of Rule 18”. The appellant argues the Tribunal should vary Rule 18, pursuant Rule 3.2 and section 4 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c S.22, in order to grant the appellant’s request for reconsideration. The appellant further argues that despite the language of Rule 18, the Tribunal should permit the reconsideration request in light of recent changes to the Tribunal’s rules, prior Tribunal jurisprudence, and the historical granting of first-time consent adjournments.
5I disagree. Rule 18 provides the Tribunal a discretionary power to reconsider, and it is clear from the language of Rule 18.1 that it only applies to requests related to decisions that finally dispose of an appeal. The decision in Irani and Khan v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, 2022 ONLAT MVDA 13393/13307 cited and linked by the appellant in its submissions is not binding on me, and in any event, I find it is not relevant to this request for reconsideration. It is not a reconsideration decision, and upon review I find it does not contain the paragraphs that are cited by the appellant in its submissions.
6While the appellant believes that the circumstances of its adjournment request mean that the Tribunal should vary Rule 18, I decline to exercise the Tribunal’s discretion under Rule 3.2. Rule 3.2 provides that the Tribunal may vary or waive the application of any Rule except where to do so is prohibited by legislation, and the Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it to control its process or prevent abuse of its process. I find the fact the appellant conducted a google search that led it to a former version of the Rules, did not consult the correct version of Rule 16, and believes there are shortcomings in the Tribunal’s form for requesting an adjournment (which I note contains a link to the applicable version of Rule 16) are not reasons to vary Rule 18.1. I find that this is not a situation where there is a need to vary the Rule in order to control the Tribunal’s process or to prevent abuse of its process.
7As this proceeding remains ongoing, I find the appellant’s request for reconsideration is regarding an Order that does not finally dispose of the appeal.
8On this basis, the appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
E. Louise Logan Vice-Chair, Delegate Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: October 17, 2023