Gagandeep Singh v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 114337

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17642/HTA

In the matter of an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act"), from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Gagandeep Singh

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Jeffery Campbell

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Gagandeep Singh G. Multani, Paralegal

For the Respondent: Sidra Saeed, Student-at-Law

HEARD by teleconference: October 30, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Gagandeep Singh (the "Appellant") appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the "Registrar") to suspend his Class A driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act").

2By way of letter to the Appellant dated September 2, 2025, the Registrar suspended the Appellant's driver's licence, pursuant to subsection 47(1) of the Act for a period of 90 days from September 4, 2025.

3By letter to the appellant dated October 10, 2025, the Ministry of Transportation ("MTO") advised that the suspension of his driver's licence would end on October 14, 2025 and that his driver's licence would be downgraded to a Class G(Z) also on October 14, 2025.

4Sidra Saeed appeared on behalf of both the Registrar and the Minister of Transportation.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Representative of the Appellant

5At the commencement of the hearing, Soni Dhingra appeared as representative of the appellant as a friend of the appellant. It came to light that Mr. Dhingra had represented parties in three other hearings this year. Pursuant to Law Society of Ontario By-Laws, I disallowed Mr. Dhingra from representing the appellant. By-Law 4, Section 30, 4 iii states that a friend or neighbour could "provide legal services in respect of not more than three matters per year".

6G. Multani who had also previously submitted a Declaration of Representative then appeared and the hearing continued with Mr. Multani as the representative for the appellant.

Issue of the Suspension of the Appellant's Class A driver's licence

7The Registrar submitted that the matter of the suspension of the appellant's Class A licence is moot, as the suspension appellant's driver's licence ended on October 14, 2025.

8The appellant submitted that the suspension of the appellant's driver's Class A driver's licence is not moot as the suspension, although ended, will continue to appear on the appellant's driving record unless the suspension is set aside by the Tribunal. This prejudices the appellant's employment opportunities.

9I agree with the appellant in this regard. The suspension of the appellant's Class A driver's licence continues to be in issue as it does affect his driving record with MTO.

Confidentiality Request

10At the commencement of the hearing the Registrar requested, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the "Rules"), an order to limit public access to OPP letters pages 6, 9 and 10 of it's submissions. The Registrar submitted that those pages contain a letter which pertains to an OPP investigation that is still in progress and some of the information in that letter could adversely affect some of the individuals that are mentioned in those pages and that the release of the information on those pages could compromise the ongoing investigation.

11The appellant did not have any objection to an order removing pages 6, 9 and 10 from the public record.

12As pages 6, 9 and 10 contain information regarding an ongoing OPP investigation, I order, on consent of the parties, that they be excluded from the public record on the basis that they involve matters involving public security.

Amendment to the Notice of Appeal

13The appellant submits that, pursuant to the letter from the MTO dated October 10, 2025, they request to also appeal the downgrade of the appellant's licence from a Class A(Z) to a Class G(Z). The appellant submits that the same facts and evidence that pertain to the suspension also pertain to the downgrade. He further submits that further delays in re-obtaining his Class A(Z) licence is prejudicial to the appellant in that it would increase the financial harm that he is experiencing.

14The Registrar submitted that the Notice of Appeal submitted by the appellant is with respect to the suspension of the appellant's driver's licence and not the subsequent downgrade. The Registrar submits that they are not prepared to proceed with an appeal of the downgrade.

15I agree with the appellant. Similar facts and evidence pertain to the downgrade as they do to the suspension. As such, in this way, the Registrar is in a position to argue the issue of the downgrade. Further, I agree that unnecessary prejudice will accrue to the appellant should the matter of the downgrade not be heard at this hearing.

ISSUES

16The issues in this hearing are:

i. Has the Registrar established sufficient reason to suspend the Appellant's licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the Act?

ii. Has the Registrar established sufficient reason to downgrade the Appellant's licence pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act?

ANALYSIS

Issue i. Suspension of the Appellant's Licence

17I find that the Registrar has not satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reasons to suspend the Appellant's Class A driver's licence.

18The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1)(b) and (g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver's licence for any sufficient reason not referred to in clauses 47(1)(d), 47(1)(e) or 47(1)(f) of the Act. The Registrar submits that it has suspended the Appellant's driver's licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the Act, which states:

"47(1) Subject to section 47.1, the Registrar may, by order, suspend or cancel,

(b) a driver's licence;

on the grounds of,

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

19The Registrar submits that the "sufficient reason" being relied upon is public safety.

20One of the fundamental purposes of the Act is to ensure the public's safety on highways. See British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), 1999 CanLII 646 (SCC) at para 26-28; Mitanidis v Ontario (Transportation), 2024 ONSC 5879; Adam Giffen v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation), 2013 ONSC 7461 at para. 33.

21I find that ensuring the public's safety on highways is a significant factor in determining whether the Registrar has established "sufficient reason" for suspending a driver's licence for the purposes of s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

22In support of it's position, the Registrar submitted a letter from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Serious Fraud Office to the MTO dated August 19, 2025 which advised the MTO of a "potential bribery related to the examination process for Class "A" commercial driver's licences." Attached to the letter was the name of 250 individuals who may have fraudulently obtained their Class A driver's licence. However, the Registrar did not submit that list of names.

23The Registrar further submitted a letter from the OPP Serious Fraud Office dated October 3, 2025 alleging that the OPP has reasonable grounds to believe that Gagandeep Singh fraudulently obtained his Class A driver's licence through a scheme in which the commercial driving examiners accepted payment in exchange for a favourable road test outcome. Attached to that letter was a photo of the Appellant's driver's licence and a screenshot of a text confirming the Appellant's road test at the road test facility that the OPP alleges is complicit in the bribery scheme to give driving students a passing grade for payment from the driving school. That screenshot confirmed the Appellant's appointment for a Class A road test for September 17, 2022.

24The Appellant confirmed that he did pass the test on September 17, 2022. He also confirmed that the picture on the driver's licence photo was his, although he does not know who took the photo.

25The Registrar alleges that the letter of October 3, 2025 establishes that, whether or not the Appellant was aware of the scheme, the Appellant obtained his Class G driver's licence through the bribery scheme between the driving school and the driving examiner.

26I note that the Registrar did not submit any further evidence with respect to how whether the examiner of the road test of September 17, 2022 fraudulently passed the Appellant in that road test.

27I accept that the OPP, in their words has reasonable grounds to believe that Gagandeep Singh fraudulently obtained his Class A driver's licence. However:

i. I am not persuaded that the letter of October 3, 2025 guarantees that all of the evidence that the OPP has to establish that reason to believe was the photo of the Appellant's drivers licence and the screenshot of the confirmation of the road test. If the OPP does have further evidence, it was not presented to this Tribunal.

ii. While the OPP may have reasonable grounds to believe the Appellant fraudulently passed the road test, that does not rise to a balance of probabilities, which is the standard of proof necessary to establish the grounds which the Registrar is relying upon.

28I am not satisfied that the evidence presented establishes on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant's driver's licence was obtained as a result of fraud or bribery resulting in a risk to public safety. I therefore find that the grounds for the suspension of the Appellant's Class A drivers licence are not met and I set aside the suspension.

Issue ii – The Downgrade of the Appellant's driver's licence

29As noted, the Minister advised that it was taking the position that because the appellant's licence was downgraded pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act which states that the Minister may,

"(ii) where the person fails to submit or to successfully complete the examinations or fails to meet the other requirements, impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any endorsements, suspend or cancel the driver's licence held by the person or change the class or classes of driver's licence held by the person;"

30The Minister submits that the Appellant failed to successfully complete the examination as the Appellant received a pass of the drive test as a result of bribery.

31The Appellant submits that s. 32(5)(b)(ii) is administrative in nature, does not fit the facts of this case and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider this section.

32Ontario Regulation 340/94 ("Regulation") prescribes the kinds of decisions which may be appealed to the Tribunal and s. 25.1 states that a decision made by the Minister under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act is a decision a person may appeal under s. 50 of the Act. There is no similar provision in the Regulation which specifically says that a decision made by the Minister pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) may be appealed under s. 50 of the Act.

33Therefore, I find that a decision made pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) is not one which is appealable under s. 50(1) of the Act and is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine.

CONCLUSION

34I find that the Registrar has not satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reason to suspend the appellant's licence and I set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's drivers licence.

35The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant's appeal with respect to the Minister's decision to downgrade the appellant's driver's licence pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS:

36For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.

37The appellant's appeal with respect to the downgrading of his licence is dismissed.