Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17718/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 and from a decision of the Minister of Transportation to change the class of a driver’s licence under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act.

Between:

Jasjeet Singh Batth

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles and the Minister of Transportation

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Jeffery Campbell

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Gurasish Singh, Counsel J. Maisuria, Student-at-Law

For the Respondent: Alexander Qanbery, Student-at-Law

HEARD: By Teleconference November 5, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Jasjeet Singh Batth (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.

3Further, by way letter to the Appellant dated October 10, 2025, the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) advised that the suspension of Appellant’s 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.

4Alexander Qanbery appeared on behalf of both the Registrar and the Minister of Transportation.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

i. Issue of the Suspension of the Appellant’s Class A driver’s licence

5The 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.

6The 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.

7I agree with the appellant in this regard. I find that the issue of the suspension of the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence is not moot as it remains on the Appellant’s driving record with MTO which could have detrimental affects on the Appellant’s employment possibilities.

ii. Confidentiality Request

8At 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.

9As 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.

iii. Amendment to the Notice of Appeal

10The 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). He 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.

11The 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 of the subsequent downgrade. The Registrar submits that they are not prepared to proceed with an appeal of the downgrade.

12I agree with the Appellant. I also find that 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

13The 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?

RESULT

14Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons to follow, I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

15For the reasons to follow, the appellant’s appeal with respect to the downgrading of his licence is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Issue i. Suspension of the Appellant’s Licence

16I find that the Registrar has not satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reasons to suspend the Appellant’s Class A driver’s licence.

17The 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).”

18The Registrar submits that the “sufficient reason” being relied upon is public safety.

19One 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.

20I 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.

21In support of it’s position, the Registrar submitted a letter from the Ontario Provincial Police Serious Fraud Office (“OPP SFO”) 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.

22The Registrar further submitted a letter from the OPP SFO dated October 3, 2025 alleging that the OPP SFO has reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant 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. The letter further stated that the OPP SFO investigators seized and examined the cellular devices of individuals implicated in the scheme and recovered multiple chat conversations from those devises. According to the OPP SFO, the conversations included a chat message between an associate of a trucking school with a former driving examiner which included the transmission of an image of the Appellant’s driver’s licence. That message was dated November 22, 2023. That message was then shared with another driver examiner on that same date.

23Attached to that letter of October 3rd was a photo of the Appellant’s driver’s licence.

24The Appellant confirmed that he did pass the road test on November 23, 2023.

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 A 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 or whether the examiner of the road test of November 23, 2023 fraudulently passed the Appellant in that road test.

27The Registrar also did not produce the list of 250 individuals referred to in the letter of August 19, 2025 nor produce screen shots of the chats referred to in the letter of October 3, 2025.

28I accept that the OPP came to the conclusion that they have reasonable grounds to believe that Appellant fraudulently obtained his Class A driver’s licence. However:

i. I find the evidence connecting the Appellant to the scheme to be sparse at best. The letter of August 19, 2025 refers to a list of drivers, which I do not have before me. The letter of October 3, 2025 refers to chat messages, which I do not have before me. Lastly, the Registrar did not produce any witness from the OPP SFO which could confirm and/or expand upon the allegations in the two letters. All that I have before me is two letters from the OPP SFO stating allegations with respect to the Appellant’s drive test, as well as a photo of the Appellant’s driver’s licence.

ii. While the OPP SFO states that they have reasonable grounds to believe the Appellant fraudulently passed the road test, that reason to believe 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.

29I 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 driver’s licence are not met and I set aside the suspension.

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

30The 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”

31The 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.

32The Minister further submits that Ontario Regulation 340/94 (“Regulation”) prescribes the kinds of decisions which may be appealed to the Tribunal and s. 25.1 of the Regulation 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.

33I agree with the Minister in this regard. Section 25.1 of the Regulation specifically sites s. 32(5)(b)(i) as the kind of decision a person may appeal under section 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.

34Therefore, 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

35I 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.

36The 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:

37For 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.

38The appellant’s appeal with respect to the downgrading of his licence is dismissed.