RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
Case Name:
1948430 Ontario Ltd. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant:
Paulbert Giraud, Appellant
For the Respondent:
Patrick Moore, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1The appellant filed a request for reconsideration form and supporting materials on August 14, 2025 in respect of the Tribunal’s decision released on August 5, 2025 (“decision”).
2Following a hearing on July 11, 2025, the Tribunal confirmed a Cancellation and Seizure Order (“order”) from the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”). This order cancelled the appellant’s Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (“CVOR”), as well as the plate portions of permits for all commercial motor vehicles and trailers issued to the appellant and its affiliates. Briefly, the adjudicator found that the Registrar established that there is reason to believe that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8.
3The appellant did not attend the hearing. As detailed at paragraphs 6 – 12 of the decision, the Tribunal ordered the hearing to proceed in the absence of the appellant.
4The 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.
5The appellant is relying on Rule 18.2(c) to support his request for reconsideration.
6The respondent opposes the request for reconsideration.
RESULT
7The appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
NOTICE OF MOTION
8On September 5, 2025, the appellant filed a Notice of Motion with the Tribunal requesting “a reconsideration of the decision made to cancel the CVOR”. He also sought another hearing before the Tribunal.
9As detailed in a direction released on September 9, 2025, Vice-Chair Campbell determined that the motion requests were a “duplication” of those made as part of his request for reconsideration. As such, he ruled that “the Tribunal will not consider the motion”.
10In light of the Vice-Chair’s direction, I have considered the documents provided with the appellant’s Notice of Motion as part of this reconsideration process.
ANALYSIS
11The 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 requesting party—in this case, the appellant—must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
12The sole criteria listed on the appellant’s request for reconsideration form is Rule 18.2(c). To find that a party has met Rule 18.2(c), the requesting party must meet a three-part test:
There is “evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision”;
This evidence “could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it”; and,
This evidence “would likely have affected the result”.
13I am sympathetic to the appellant, especially as he is attempting to navigate this process without the assistance of legal representation. I am also mindful of the financial struggles he has detailed in his materials—struggles that are impacting his family. However, it is still up to him to show that this request meets the test for reconsideration. I find he has not met the test under Rule 18.2(c).
14In support of his request, the appellant provided a letter to the Tribunal stating that he “missed my date due to a surgery I had in [sic] June 10th”. He notes that there were other “complications” that required him to “go back again”. Further, the appellant submits that he requires his CVOR to support his children.
15No other documents were provided with the appellant’s request for reconsideration. However, as part of his motion materials, he included a document entitled: “Request for Written Medical Clearance”. In this undated letter, Dr. Cesar Velilla asks an unnamed individual for the appellant’s “medical history and clearance status”. This information is needed because the appellant was preparing for surgery. No date was provided for when this surgery would take place.
16His motion materials also included a second letter from the appellant to the Tribunal. In this undated letter, the appellant states that he missed a prior meeting with the Registrar due to a surgery, memory issues resulting from an accident in 2014, and a four-day stay at Sunnybrook Hospital.
17The respondent is asking to dismiss the reconsideration, submitting that “the Tribunal did not err in deciding to proceed with the hearing”. Further, the respondent claims that, while the “principal of the Appellant corporation has indicated being impacted by medical issues”, he has “not provided evidence of these issues.” According to the respondent, there is also no indication of how “any issues impacted the corporation’s non-attendance at the scheduled hearing or its failure to request an adjournment”.
18I find the appellant has not met the three-part test needed to trigger Rule 18.2(c).
19As noted in both the request for reconsideration and the Notice of Motion, the appellant is seeking to have a new hearing before the Tribunal, claiming that he was unable to attend the hearing due to medical issues. Yet, in the undated letter from Dr. Velilla, there is no indication of when this medical clearance was being sought, nor is there any information about when this proposed surgery would be taking place. Put another way, I find the letter does not show that the appellant was unable to attend the hearing on July 11, 2025.
20Therefore, even if I accept that the letter from Dr. Velilla is new evidence that was not before the Tribunal (and that the appellant could not have obtained this letter prior to the release of the decision), there is no explanation of how this letter would likely have affected the result of the decision. Specifically, there is no indication that the appellant could not attend the hearing on July 11, 2025, such that the adjudicator would likely have changed her order to have the hearing proceed in his absence.
21Further, while I am mindful of the medical issues detailed in his second letter to the Tribunal (i.e., a surgery, memory issues, and hospitalization), the appellant did not provide any documents to corroborate these claims. The letter also does not indicate when this surgery or hospitalization took place.
22Finally, I find that the appellant’s reconsideration submissions do not show that the adjudicator’s decision to proceed with the hearing in his absence was unfair or incorrect. I note that the respondent’s reconsideration materials show that the appellant had prior knowledge of when the hearing was taking place. There was a notice sent to the parties on June 18, 2025, followed by a reminder e-mail on July 8, 2025. It is clear that the appellant was aware of when the hearing was scheduled for, yet there does not appear to have been any attempts on his part to try and reschedule the event. The appellant’s reconsideration submissions do not challenge these findings.
23The appellant has the onus to show he is entitled to a reconsideration, and I find he has not met this onus.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
24The appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: October 3, 2025