Hussain v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 49036

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Avril A. Farlam

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15727 MVIA

Case Name: Hussain v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Written Submissions by:

For the Appellant: Bibi Sharima Hussain, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent

OVERVIEW

1On April 9, 2024, the appellant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released April 9, 2024 (“decision”).

2In the decision I confirmed the impoundment, having found 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 does not specify on which ground under Rule 18 she seeks reconsideration. The appellant submits that “I mentioned all my expenses to the hearing on April 2^nd 2024 as I will mention below again” and then sets out expenses that she spoke about at the hearing and asks that her case be reconsidered because of her expenses.

5The respondent submits that the appellant has failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18 and submits that the request for reconsideration be denied.

6The appellant does not specify what reconsideration outcome she is requesting under Rule 18.4. However, 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 she is seeking a favourable outcome in keeping with Rule 18.4.

RESULT

7The appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

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

8The appellant made no specific submissions and provided no evidence that I acted outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or committed a material breach of procedural fairness. The appellant’s submissions repeat her testimony and submissions at the hearing about her personal finances, need for transportation, and how the impoundment of her vehicle has resulted in financial and personal strain. The appellant testified at the hearing to this same effect as set out in paragraph 13 of the decision.

9As a matter of law, I may only consider whether the impoundment will result in financial loss to the appellant if there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle as set out in paragraphs 9 through 12 and 17 of the decision. I found that there were alternatives available to the appellant for the reasons set out in paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 18 of the decision.

10I find that the appellant has not established this possible ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(a).

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;

11The appellant made no specific submissions and provided no evidence that I made an error of law or fact such that I would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.

12I find that the appellant has not established this possible ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b).

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.

13The appellant made no specific submissions and provided no evidence that there is evidence that was not before me when rendering my decision that could not have been obtained previously by the appellant which she is seeking to introduce and would likely have affected the decision.

14I find that the appellant has not established this possible ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(c).

15The 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.

16A reconsideration is a limited, error correcting exercise. It is not an appeal nor an opportunity to re-argue a case.

17I find that the appellant has not established this possible ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

18I find that the appellant has not established any of the possible grounds for reconsideration in Rule 18.

19The grounds for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision are limited, specific and their purpose is to correct errors in the initial decision. In order to succeed on a reconsideration request, at least one of the grounds must be established. 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 are an attempt to reargue her case and achieve a different outcome.

20Dissatisfaction 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

21For 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.).