Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15847/ADLS

In the matter of an appeal from a suspension under s. 48.3.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8.

Between:

Melissa Severin

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATORS:

Dr. Peter Savage Colin Osterberg

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

No one appearing

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

Heard by Teleconference:

June 6, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Melissa Severin, the appellant, appeals from a suspension of her driver’s licence under s. 48.3.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”). The suspension took place April 11, 2024 after a police officer determined that the appellant met the criteria set out in s. 48.3.1 and the officer came to believe that the appellant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug or by a combination of a drug and alcohol.

2The appellant brought this appeal under s. 50.1 of the Act.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

3The appellant failed to appear at the hearing. We ordered that the hearing proceed in the absence of the appellant.

4Pursuant to Rule 3.7.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023, where a party who has been given notice of a hearing does not attend the hearing within 30 minutes of the scheduled start time, the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party.

5On May 10, 2024, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Hearing (“NOH”) to the appellant by sending a copy of the NOH to the email address provided by the appellant in her Notice of Appeal dated April 26, 2024. The Tribunal received no indication that the email was not received at that email address, and we are satisfied that the appellant was given notice of the hearing in accordance with Rule 3.7.1.

6The hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. on June 6, 2024. The appellant did not attend the hearing at that time. The Tribunal waited 30 minutes for the appellant to appear, during which time, the case management officer at the Tribunal attempted to contact the appellant without success. After 30 minutes had elapsed, and after hearing submissions from the Registrar, the Tribunal ordered the hearing to proceed.

ISSUES

7The issue in dispute is whether the appellant has established the grounds for appeal under s. 50.1(2) of the Act.

RESULT

8The appellant has failed to establish the grounds for appeal under s. 50.1(2) of the Act and the suspension of her driver’s licence is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

The appellant has failed to establish grounds for appeal

9The appellant has failed to establish grounds for appealing the suspension of her driver’s licence.

10Pursuant to s. 50.1(2)(b) of the Act, the only grounds on which a person may appeal a driver’s licence suspension under s. 48.3.1 and the only grounds on which the Tribunal may order that the suspension be set aside are:

i. that the person whose licence was suspended is not the same individual who submitted to an evaluation under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code, or

ii. that the person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was not impaired by a drug or by a combination of a drug and alcohol, and the person had a medical condition that impaired her performance of the evaluation that was conducted under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code.

11The onus of establishing one of the above grounds of appeal is on the appellant.

12The appellant was not in attendance at the hearing and did not present any evidence. As a result, the grounds of appeal set out in s. 48.3.1 of the Act were not established.

ORDER

13On the basis of the above, the suspension of the appellant’s driver’s licence is confirmed.