Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16307/MED Date: November 25, 2024
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 pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.
Between:
Florentina Albu Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Peter Savage, Member Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Florentina Albu, Appellant For the Respondent: Melissa Litrenta, Representative
Held by teleconference: November 20, 2024
BACKGROUND
1Florentina Albu (the "appellant") appealed the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the "Registrar") to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons.
2The respondent sent the appellant a letter dated August 15, 2024, indicating her driver's licence was suspended. This was following the receipt of an unsolicited Medical Condition Report from a physician dated August 13, 2024.
3A case conference was held by teleconference on October 23, 2024. The appellant appeared self-represented. Melissa Litrenta appeared as the respondent's representative. A Case Conference Report and Order ("CCRO") was released on October 29, 2024. The CCRO ordered that the matter would be heard by teleconference on November 6, 2024. By way of an Adjournment Order dated November 4, 2024, the hearing of the matter was rescheduled to be heard on a date between November 18 and 22, 2024. A subsequent Notice of Rescheduled Hearing was sent by the Tribunal to the parties on November 20, 2024 stating that the hearing will occur on November 20, 2024 at 1:30 p.m.
4On November 13, 2024, the respondent notified the appellant by letter (sent via email) that the appellant's case had been approved. The Tribunal was copied on that email. On that date, the appellant's driver's licence was reinstated.
5When the licence was reinstated, due to an administrative oversight the Tribunal did not notify the parties of the file's closure.
6The Tribunal's authority with respect to this appeal is pursuant to section 50(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act"). Section 50(2) of the Act states that, after a hearing, the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.
7As a result of the Registrar reinstating the appellant's driver's licence, the order of the Registrar suspending the appellant's driver's licence dated August 15, 2024 is no longer in effect. Subsequently, the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction with respect to this appeal.
8On November 18, 2024, the appellant served and filed a Notice of Motion requesting: i) a reconsideration regarding alleged procedural irregularities during the Case Conference, ii) a clarification of the Case Conference Report and Order, iii) a formal confirmation from the Ministry of Transportation ("MTO") that the suspension of the driver's licence will be overturned upon submission of certain further medical documentation, iv) an expedited hearing and v) an award of legal costs.
ATTENDANCE AFTER LICENCE REINSTATEMENT
9The parties convened via teleconference on November 20, 2024, the previously scheduled day for the hearing on the merits. The attendance took place because of the administrative oversight noted above, namely that the Tribunal's file ought to have been closed upon reinstatement of the appellant's licence but that the parties were not notified accordingly. We took the opportunity to clarify the Tribunal's jurisdiction to the appellant, as noted below.
10Upon discussion with the parties, it became apparent that the appellant's requests in her Notice of Motion related to an effort on her part to have the suspension of the driver's licence 'overturned,' and removed from the MTO records on the basis that it should not have happened in the first place, regardless of the subsequent reinstatement of her licence.
11We advised the appellant that the Tribunal is not in a position to grant her what she is seeking because:
a) As the appellant's driver's licence has been reinstated, there is no longer an issue to be adjudicated by the Tribunal, which closes its file once a suspended licence is reinstated; and
b) In any case the Tribunal lacks the authority to 'overturn' a suspension in the sense that the appellant means it. During her attendance, the appellant explained that she seeks to have the MTO back-date the reinstatement to the date of suspension and/or remove it from her record entirely. This is outside the Tribunal's authority, which does not extend to jurisdiction over the MTO's record-keeping practices or modifying a reinstatement date.
c) We note that, while the appellant's Notice of Motion was framed in part as a request for reconsideration, reconsideration is available only for decisions of the Tribunal that finally dispose of an appeal, under Rule 18.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules. Even had there still been an appeal underway at the Tribunal, the Case Conference Report and Order that was the subject of the reconsideration request did not finally dispose of the appeal. The reinstatement of the appellant's licence by the respondent disposed of the appeal.
12As the appellant's driver's licence has been reinstated, there is no longer an issue before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal's file will be closed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Dr. Peter Savage Adjudicator
Jeffery Campbell Vice-Chair
Released: November 25, 2024