Larry Gaule v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 118

Tribunals Ontario

Licence Appeal Tribunal

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Dr. Isla McPherson, Member Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15299/MED

Case Name: Larry Gaule v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Written Submissions by:

For the Applicant: Larry Gaule

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

Date: January 3, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Larry Gaule, the appellant, requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision following a hearing on November 8, 2023, in which the Tribunal confirmed the Registrar’s decision suspending the appellant’s driver’s licence.

2The appellant’s request is on grounds set out in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s Rules, 2023 (“Rules”). Rule 18.2 requires the party requesting reconsideration establish one or more of the following:

a. The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness;

b. 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; or

c. There is 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.

3The appellant’s request is based on Rules 18.2b and 18.2c.

ISSUES

4The issue to be decided on this reconsideration is whether the appellant has established at least one of the above grounds under Rule 18.2b or 18.2c for reconsideration.

RESULT

5After considering the parties’ submissions, we confirm the Tribunal’s decision.

ANALYSIS

Rule 18.2c

6We begin with Rule 18.2(c) as this introduces the evidence from which the appellant’s claim under Rule 18.2(b) flows.

7The appellant submits that there was evidence which was not submitted due to an error of the appellant. That error is that one page of four was missed in scanning and therefore only three pages of the evidence was submitted in error. The four pages contain hospital records from Southlake Regional Health Centre in Barrie, Ontario. The three pages that the Tribunal received were pages 1, 2 and 4. The missing page was page 3 of 4. Page 3 forms the basis for the appellant’s request under Rule 18.2c., as that documentary evidence was not before the Tribunal.

8Rule 18.2c states that the evidence that was not before the Tribunal also must be evidence that “could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it and would likely have affected the result.” It is clear that this evidence was in the possession of the appellant at the time of the hearing but was not successfully transmitted to the Tribunal. We also find that, for reasons stated below, if the Tribunal did have page 3 at the time of the hearing, that would not have affected the result.

9We therefore find that this document does not meet the requirements of Rule 18.2c as it is not evidence that could not have been obtained previously by the appellant, and it would not have affected the result of the hearing.

Rule 18.2b

10The appellant refers to paragraph 11(g) of the Tribunal’s decision which states that “The appellant testified that Dr. Goldberger suggested increasing the Keppra prescription to 750 mg twice daily…” and also to paragraph 21 which states that “Dr. Goldberger recommended increasing the appellant’s prescription…”.

11The appellant submits that the use of the word “recommended” in paragraph 21 of the Decision, rather than the word “option” in Dr. Goldberger’s notes (in the above mentioned missing page 3) is an error of fact, forming the basis for appellant’s request under Rule 18.2b. The appellant submits that the use of the word “recommended” rather than “option” gave rise to the statement in paragraph 12 of “…the appellant not implementing the neurologist’s suggestion to increase the anti-epileptic drug to treat the auras is concerning…”

12By way of context, although the Tribunal was not in possession of page 3 at the hearing of the matter, the appellant testified that Dr. Goldberger presented him with the option of increasing Keppra prescription to 750 mg twice daily. If the appellant used the word “option” as opposed to “recommended” or “suggested”, that use may, indeed, be an error of fact. However, whichever word that the appellant used, or the Tribunal heard, would not have affected the Tribunal’s concerns over the appellant choosing, up to the date of the hearing, not to accept the increase of the prescription. Further, the choice of increasing the Keppra medication was merely one of a number of factors in the Tribunal’s conclusion that the appellant’s seizure control had yet to be established.

13We find that the use of the word “recommended” in the decision as opposed to “option” would not have caused the Tribunal to reach a different result pursuant to Rule 18.2b.

CONCLUSION

14The appellant has not established grounds to reconsider the Tribunal's decision and the appellant's request for reconsideration is dismissed.

LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Dr. Isla McPherson, Member Jeffery Campbell, Vice Chair