2726592 Ontario Inc. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 43465

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Avril A. Farlam

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15638 MVIA

Case Name: 2726592 Ontario Inc. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Written Submissions by:

For the Appellant: David Lim, an owner of the appellant

For the Respondent: Sadia Ashraf, Agent

OVERVIEW

1On March 11, 2024, the appellant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision released March 11, 2024 ("decision").

2In the decision I confirmed the impoundment and found that the appellant did not establish that the driver's licence of the driver was not under suspension at the time of impoundment and, that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship.

3For reconsideration of decisions released on or after August 21, 2023, the grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 ("Rules"). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:

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.

4The appellant asks for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(c) of the Rules. The appellant attached a copy of what it describes as "a valid Nova Scotia drivers licence" in the name of Timothy Paul Henneberry issued October 10, 2023 and expiring August 13, 2028, which the appellant states it did not have at the time of the hearing and "was not asked to submit to support its appeal". The appellant asks that this be considered on reconsideration.

5The respondent submits that the appellant has failed to establish any ground for reconsideration. The respondent also submits that Mr. Henneberry was issued a Criminal Code conviction in relation to blood alcohol content in excess of 80 mgs with an offence date of September 17, 2021, followed by a Notice of Suspension April 6, 2022. On March 13, 2023, Mr. Henneberry was issued a subsequent suspension for a conviction relating to operation of a vehicle while prohibited under the Criminal Code, with an offence date of August 25, 2022. On March 17, 2023 a Notice of Suspension was mailed to him at the appellant's address listed on its Notice of Appeal in this appeal. The respondent submits that the appellant should have had knowledge of Mr. Henneberry's driver's licence status in Ontario, given that the appellant has identified Mr. Henneberry as one of its owners and communications regarding his driver's licence status in Ontario were sent to the appellant's address. The respondent asks that the request for reconsideration be denied.

6In reply to the respondent's submissions, the appellant attached a letter from Mr. Henneberry in which he states that he obtained a copy of his replacement "valid" drivers licence on February 9, 2024 from the province of Nova Scotia to replace the licence that was taken from him by the OPP officer the night the charge of driving while suspended was laid, stating that he lives in Nova Scotia, and operates his other business location there. Mr. Henneberry also writes that the impound notice issued to him on February 7, 2024 states he is the owner of the vehicle which is incorrect. Further, Mr. Henneberry states that the documents attached to the respondent's submissions "do not nullify the legality of Timothy Henneberry operating a vehicle with a legal, valid drivers licence issued by...Nova Scotia. Ontario is a province with its own laws, as is Nova Scotia."

7The appellant's reconsideration submissions indicate that it seeks that the vehicle be released from impoundment. The only outcomes provided for in Rule 18.4 favourable to the appellant are that the decision be varied, cancelled or a rehearing ordered. As a result, I have taken the appellant's reconsideration request as meaning it is seeking these outcomes.

RESULT

8The appellant's request for reconsideration is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

The evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision would not have affected the result

9The appellant's evidence and submissions at the hearing were that Mr. Henneberry had a valid driver's licence as set out in paragraphs 7 through 11 of the decision. The respondent presented records which clearly established that the suspension of Mr. H's driver's licence took place in Ontario subsequent to a conviction under the federal Criminal Code as set out in paragraph 12 of the decision.

10Although the appellant arguably could have obtained a copy of Mr. Henneberry's Nova Scotia driver's licence and submitted it at the hearing, it appears from the appellant's submissions that the appellant was unable to do so because his Nova Scotia driver's licence had been taken by the Ontario police at the time of impoundment. As a result, I accept the copy of his Nova Scotia driver's licence as new evidence and have considered it on this reconsideration.

11However, the copy of the Nova Scotia's driver's licence does not assist the appellant here. The evidence and submissions of the respondent at the hearing and on reconsideration is that Mr. Henneberry's driver's licence was suspended in Ontario on March 13, 2023 until March 31, 2024 for driving while disqualified under the Criminal Code. This is shown on the respondent's records filed at the hearing as conviction number 3036575 and was found to be proof of the suspension at paragraph 12 of the decision.

12Under section 36 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, a person whose driver's licence has been suspended in Ontario is not permitted to drive a vehicle in Ontario under a driver's licence issued by any other jurisdiction during the suspension.

13I note in addition that on the copy of his Nova Scotia driver's licence issued October 10, 2023 and filed by the appellant on reconsideration, Mr. Henneberry's name is shown as:

"1. Henneberry – Fudge

2. Timothy Paul"

14This is not entirely consistent with Mr. Henneberry's name as it appears on the letter that he signed as "Timothy Henneberry" submitted on reconsideration.

15However, assuming that Mr. Henneberry has a validly issued Nova Scotia driver's licence, this driver's licence did not in any case permit him to drive in Ontario where he was, on the date of impoundment, prohibited from driving as a result of his Criminal Code conviction.

16This new evidence would not have affected the finding that Mr. Henneberry's Ontario driver's licence was suspended at the time of impoundment as set out in paragraph 12 of my Decision.

17Although Mr. Henneberry also writes that the impound notice issued to him on February 7, 2024 states he is the owner of the vehicle which is incorrect, even if so, this is not relevant to the basis for impoundment, i.e. whether his Ontario driver's licence was suspended. In any case the Notice to Registrar filed at the hearing by the respondent, and the Notice of Impoundment and Release dated Feb 21, 2024 both show the appellant as the owner of the vehicle, not Mr. Henneberry. Still further, this is information that would have been available to the appellant before the hearing.

18The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. 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.

19A reconsideration is a limited, error correcting exercise. It is not an appeal nor an opportunity to re-argue a case.

20As a result, I find the appellant has not established that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the appellant, and would likely have affected the result.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

21I find that the appellant has not established its 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 it to establish its grounds and the appellant has failed to do so. The appellant's reconsideration submissions are in effect an attempt to reargue its case in a new way.

22Dissatisfaction 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 case¹, nor is it a hearing de novo or an appeal².

23For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the appellant's request for reconsideration of my decision.

Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal

Footnotes

1. 1N.D. v. Aviva Insurance Company, 2021 CanLII 64232; N.R. v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2020 CanLII 101753; Gore v. Rusk, 2022 ONSC 2893 at para. 50 (Div. Ct).
2. 2Warren v. Licence Appeal Tribunal, 2022 ONSC 3741 at para. 22 (Div. Ct.).