Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17441/MED

In the matter of an appeal under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.* (the “Act”) from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to cancel a number plate pursuant to s. 12(2) of the Act.

Between:

Haya Obaida-Saadi

Appellant

and

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION and ORDER

VICE-CHAIR:

Jan Dymond

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Anthony Debly, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

HEARD:

In Writing

OVERVIEW

1Haya Obaida-Saadi (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to recall and cancel her personalized licence plate pursuant to s.12(2) of the Act. The Ministry of Transportation notified the appellant of the decision via letter dated May 6, 2025 which indicated that the plate has been deemed inappropriate in that it contains or implies political opinions.

2On August 13, 2025, the Registrar filed a Notice of Motion requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the appeal without a case conference or hearing for lack of jurisdiction. The Registrar submitted that the plate was cancelled under authority of s.12(2) of the Act and that the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear appeals under sections 50, 50.1, 50.2, and 50.3 of the Act.

3A case conference for the matter was held on August 20, 2025. The Registrar submitted that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal and that the appeal should be dismissed. The appellant did not consent.

4The Tribunal ordered that the issue of jurisdiction should be determined at a separate preliminary issue hearing conducted in advance of the previously scheduled date to consider the merits of the appeal.

5The Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”) set out a timetable for the parties’ submissions on the preliminary issue as follows:

i. Registrar’s submissions, evidence and authorities, 14 days after the case conference;

ii. Appellant’s submissions, evidence and authorities, 21 calendar days after the case conference; and

iii. Registrar’s reply submissions, if any, 3 business days after the appellant’s responsive submissions.

6The Registrar filed its submissions as required. The appellant did not file a preliminary issue submission, as required, by September 10, 2025.

7On September 28, 2025, the appellant filed a Notice of Motion with the Tribunal requesting an extension of the deadline by which to serve and file their preliminary issue submission. The appellant’s request was heard on October 2, 2025. The appellant’s request for an extension was granted. The appellant was required to serve their written submissions and evidence no later than 5:00 p.m. Thursday, October 2, 2025.

8The appellant’s written submission on the preliminary issue was served on the Registrar and filed with the Tribunal in accordance with the extended timeline.

ISSUES

9The issue in dispute is:

i. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction in this matter?

RESULT

10I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter. The appellant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the hearing date of October 20, 2025 is vacated.

ANALYSIS

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision of the Registrar taken under s. 12(2) of the Act?

11I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision of the Registrar taken under s.12(2) of the Act because the Act does not assign authority to the Tribunal.

12Section 3 (1) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G (“LAT Act”) sets out the authority of the Tribunal as follows:

The Tribunal shall hold the hearings and perform the other duties that are assigned to it by or under any Act or regulation.

13Section 50(1) of the Act sets out the decisions of the Minister and Registrar that may be appealed to the Tribunal as follows:

Every person aggrieved by a decision of the Minister made under subsection 32 (5) for which there is a right of appeal pursuant to a regulation made under clause 32 (14) (n) or a decision or order of the Registrar under section 17 or 47 may appeal the decision to the Tribunal.

14Section 12 of the Act governs the recall and cancellation of licence plates. Sections 12(2) and (3) state:

Property of the Crown

(2) Every number plate is the property of the Crown and shall be returned to the Ministry when required by the Registrar.

Notice to plate holder

(2.1) The Registrar may cause notice to be given to the holder of a number plate that the number plate is required to be returned to the Ministry.

Same

(2.2) Notice under subsection (2.1) is sufficiently given if delivered personally or mailed to the latest address of the holder of the number plate on the records of the Ministry.

No right to be heard

(2.3) There is no right to be heard before notice is given under subsection (2.1).

Cancellation of number plate

(2.4) The Registrar may cancel a number plate if it is not returned within 60 days after the date by which it is required to be returned, but if the Registrar is satisfied that the number plate is damaged, altered, deteriorated or worn such that it may not be accurately photographed by an electronic toll system, automated speed enforcement system or red light camera system, the Registrar may cancel the number plate if it is not returned within 30 days after the required date.

Same

(3) For the purpose of subsections (2) to (2.4), “number plate” includes,

(a) a number plate bearing a requested number,

(b) evidence of validation,

(c) a permit, and

(d) [Repealed]

(e) an IRP cab card issued by the Ministry.

15The Registrar submits that the appellant’s number plate was recalled under s.12(2) of the Act. The Registrar relies on s.12(2.3) of the Act and submits the Act does not contain a right of appeal to the Tribunal for orders made under s.12 of the Act. They further submit that it is clear that the Legislature did not intend for the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction with respect to licence plate decisions made under s.12 of the Act. The Registrar requests that the appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

16The appellant argues that it is not the intent of the legislation to prohibit any appeal from the Registrar’s decisions. The appellant submits that the denial of the right to be heard found in s.12(2.3) of the Act only applies to those cases where the appeal is brought prior to notice being given by the Registrar and does not apply in this case because the appeal was brought after notice was given by the Registrar. The appellant further submits that the right to be heard after a notice has been given is implied by the fact that s. 12(2.3) of the Act only denies a right of appeal prior to the Registrar’s notice. The appellant argues that specific language allowing an appeal does not have to be explicit when the converse wording is present.

17I find that the appellant’s argument that she has a right of appeal under s. 12 by negative implication to be unhelpful in interpreting whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear her matter because she does not address whether the Legislature has assigned the Tribunal the jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision made by the Registrar under s.12(2) of the Act.

18As stated above, s. 3(1) of the LAT Act provides the Tribunal with the authority to hold hearings and perform other duties assigned to it under any Act or regulation (my emphasis added).

19The Registrar submits that the only authority assigned to the Tribunal is found in sections 50, 50.1, 50.2 and 50.3 of the Act and that none of those sections grant a right of appeal to the Tribunal for decisions taken under s.12(2) of the Act.

20For the reasons that follow, I am persuaded by the Registrar’s submissions that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions taken under s.12(2) of the Act.

21As a creature of statute, I find that the LAT Act requires that there must be a specific assignment of jurisdiction to the Tribunal to hear an appeal. The Act is highly specific in its references to the Tribunal’s authority and I am not persuaded by the appellant’s argument that no explicit reference is needed. As submitted by the Registrar, sections 50, 50.1, 50.2, and 50.3 identify the decisions Registrar that may be appealed to the Tribunal, specifically sections 17 and 47. I find that there is no reference to a right of appeal to the Tribunal for decisions made under s.12(2). If I were to accept the appellant’s argument, then the Act would have to enumerate all the decisions that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear. The fact that there is no right to be heard before the Registrar’s notice is given under s. 12 does not, without more, mean that there is a right to be heard after the notice is given. Rather, I find that the use of positive language is clear and consistent with respecting the legislature’s choice to assign some decisions to this Tribunal.

22For the reasons above, I find that the Registrar has established that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal under s.12(2) of the Act.

Does the appellant have a right of appeal under s. 47 of the Act?

23I find that section 47 of the Act does not give the appellant a right of appeal from the Registrar’s decision to cancel a licence plate under section 12.

24Under section 47(1) of the Act, the Registrar may, by order, suspend or cancel,

(a) the plate portion of a permit as defined in Part II;

(b) a driver’s licence; or

(c) a CVOR certificate,

on the grounds of,

(d) misconduct for which the holder is responsible, directly or indirectly, related to the operation or driving of a motor vehicle;

(e) conviction of the holder for an offence referred to in subsection 210 (1) or (2);

(f) the Registrar having reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the holder or of a person related to the holder, and any other information that the Registrar considers relevant, that the holder will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with this Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety; or

(g) any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e) or (f).

25The Registrar submits that the appellant’s appeal should be dismissed because the decision of the Registrar was taken under s. 12(2) of the Act and that the appellant does not have a right of appeal under s. 47 of the Act. The Registrar acknowledges that there is a right of appeal for orders made under s.47 of the Act; however, they submit that Registrar did not cancel the plate portion of the permit pursuant to s. 47 of the Act and further submits that the order was expressly made under s. 12 of the Act. The Registrar argues that plate cancellation decisions under s. 12 are not comparable to those made under s.47 because, unlike s.47 decisions, decisions under s.12 do not involve an accusation of wrongdoing.

26The appellant submits that the appeal should be allowed to proceed as an appeal under s. 50(1) of the Act. The appellant argues that the plate portion of the vehicle permit includes the plate number and that, by issuing a new plate portion, the Registrar is effectively cancelling the plate portion of vehicle permit and that such cancellations fall under s.47 of the Act with a right of appeal under section 50(1) of the Act.

27I am not persuaded by the appellant’s submission that the appellant has a right of appeal under s.47 of the Act for the reasons that follow. First, there is no evidence that the Registrar ordered cancellation of the plate portion of the vehicle permit under s.47 of the Act. I have reviewed the Registrar’s letter, dated May 6, 2025, as well as the notice of cancellation of the vehicle plate dated June 5, 2025, and find no reference to s.47 of the Act. Both documents cite only s.12(2) of the Act as the basis for the Registrar’s orders. The May 6, 2025 letter advises the appellant that her personalized licence plate is being recalled under s.12(2) of the Act and instructs the appellant to attend a Service Ontario centre to surrender her personalized licence plate and to present her vehicle permit in order for the ministry to issue a new set of regular licence plates. The notice of June 5, 2025 advises the appellant that her licence plate is cancelled pursuant to s.12(2) of the Act.

28I am not persuaded by the appellant’s argument that the reissuance of a vehicle permit pursuant to a s.12(2) licence plate recall equates to cancellation under s. 47 of the Act. Section 47 clearly applies to cancellations under specific grounds. Had the Registrar intended to order cancellation of the vehicle permit under s. 47, they could have done so and articulate which ground under s.47(1) they took that action, but they did not. Instead, they Registrar appears to have exercised another route of statutory authority available to it under the Act. Further, as the appellant herself submits, s. 12(3)(c) of the Act clarifies that, for the purposes of s. 12(2) to (4), “number plate” includes a permit. Since s.12(3) includes cancellation of a permit, then it follows that cancellation of the plate portion of a vehicle permit portion, if ordered in connection with a number plate recall, is clearly encompassed under s.12(2). Having considered the parties’ submissions and a review of the specific wording of s.47, as well as the notices issued to the appellant, I find no evidence that either the recall or cancellation of the appellant’s number plate was ordered pursuant to s. 47 of the Act.

29I find that the Registrar has established that recall and cancellation of the appellant’s number plate were ordered under s.12(2) of the Act and that the appellant does not have a right of appeal under s.47 of the Act.

Conclusion

30I find that the Registrar has established that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Act does not assign authority to the Tribunal to hear appeals of decisions of the Registrar under s.12(2) of the Act.

ORDER

31For the reasons above, I order that:

i. The appeal is dismissed; and

ii. The substantive issue hearing date scheduled for October 20, 2025 is hereby vacated.