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:
Mitchell Peragine
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Jan Dymond, Vice Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mitchell Peragine, Self-Represented
For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent
Heard in Writing: November 17, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Mitchell Peragine (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to reinstate his driving privileges by letter dated September 19, 2025 after they were suspended on July 21, 2022 for a medical condition, specifically substance use disorder and a mental health condition.
2A case conference was held by teleconference on October 29, 2025 at which the Registrar submitted that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal because the circumstances do not fall under permitted grounds for appeal under the Act. The Registrar advised that the appellant had been unlicensed for a period greater than three years subsequent upon reinstatement and that having been without a valid licence for three years, he was only entitled to hold a novice licence in a class G1 pursuant to s. 29(1) of O. Reg 340/94 (the “Regulation”) . The appellant is seeking reinstatement of his driver’s licence as a full Class G licence. The Registrar submitted that its decision to reinstate the appellant’s licence as a novice licence is dictated by statute and is not appealable under s. 50.1 of the Act.
3At the case conference, the parties agreed on timeframe of October 31,2025, for the Registrar to file a written motion.
4On October 30, 2025 the Registrar filed a Notice of Motion with accompanying submission requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the appellant’s appeal on the ground that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear it.
5The Tribunal directed the appellant to file written submissions no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 10, 2025. The appellant filed written submission on November 10, 2025, as required.
6The respondent was directed to file reply submissions, if any, by 5:00 p.m. on November 13, 2025. The respondent did not file a responding submission.
RESULT
7I find that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appellant’s appeal is dismissed without a hearing and the scheduled hearing date of November 19, 2025 is vacated.
ANALYSIS
8Section 3(1) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, c.12 Sched. G (the “LAT Act”) empowers the Tribunal to “hold the hearings and perform other duties that are assigned to it by or under any act or regulation.”
9Section 4.6 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990. Ch. 22, (the “SPPA”) authorizes tribunals to make rules enabling a tribunal to dismiss a proceeding.
10The Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the “Rules”) apply to this proceeding. Under Rule 3.4(b), the Tribunal may dismiss an appeal without a hearing if the appeal relates to matters that are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
11The Registrar submits that the Tribunal is a statutory tribunal and that its jurisdiction is derived exclusively from statute. They further submit that the Tribunal’s authority to hear appeals under the Act is limited to those matters identified in set out in s. 50.(1) of the Act, which states:
50.(1) 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 of the Registrar under section 17 or 47 may appeal the decision to the Tribunal. 2002, c. 18 Sched. P, s. 17.
12The Registrar submits that the referenced sections and subsection do not apply for the following reasons:
i. s.17 does not apply because the appellant is not interested in a CVOR certificate;
ii. s.47 does not apply because the appellant’s driver’s licence is no longer suspended; and
iii. and s. 32.5(b)(i) does not apply because there was no condition imposed or change of class as a result of an examination as prescribed under s.25.1 of the Regulation.
13The Registrar submits that the appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended effective July 31, 2022, for medical reasons under s. 47(1) of the Act following receipt of a medical condition report.
14On September 19, 2025, the Registrar notified the appellant that his case was approved following receipt of satisfactory medical information and his suspension was lifted. The Registrar further advised that, as the appellant had been unlicensed for a period of greater than three years at the time the suspension was lifted, his licence was cancelled and he would be required to re-apply for a licence as a novice driver.
15The Registrar submits that cancellation of the appellant’s licence and the requirement that he re-apply as a novice driver were issued pursuant to s. 29(1) of O. Reg 340/94. The Registrar notes that the classification is imposed by law; that it is not a decision of the Minister, nor a decision that is subject to discretion or appeal.
16The appellant submits that he would have completed the steps necessary for reinstatement within the three year period were it not for a delay in receiving documents requested from the Ministry and requests that the Tribunal order reinstatement of his Class G licence.
17The appellant submits that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear his appeal because it is a medical drivers licence suspension case. He relies on descriptions of the role of the Licence Appeal Tribunal provided in his submission. The document submitted by the appellant outlines the Tribunal’s areas of authority in general terms. The source of the document is not stated but it appears to be excerpted from various pages on the Tribunals Ontario website. The appellant submits that the descriptions support his position that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear his appeal. The appellant does not point me to a statutory authority or case law in support of his position.
18I have considered the submissions of both parties and find for the Registrar. As stated under the LAT Act and referenced in both the Registrar’s and the appellant’s submissions, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction extends only to matters assigned to it under an act or regulation.
19The appellant’s Notice of Appeal indicates that he is appealing the decision dated September 19, 2025, which is the date of the letter lifting the suspension and advising the appellant that he could re-apply for a licence as a novice driver.
20For the reasons that follow, I find that the appeal does not involve a medical suspension of a driver’s licence under s.47 of the Act and, therefore, is not appealable under s. 50.1 of the Act. Section 47 of the Act addresses the Registrar’s authority to suspend or cancel a licence but does not include reference to reinstatement. Further, the Registrar has stated that the cancellation of the appellant’s licence was made under s. 29.(1)(a) of O. Reg 340/94, not under s.47.
21I also am persuaded by the Registrar’s submissions that 32.5(b)(i) does not apply because I find that a decision made under s. 29.(1)(a) of O. Reg 340/94 does not represent a condition or change in class in accordance with the results of the examinations or other prescribed requirement.
Conclusion
22I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because assignment of the appellant’s class of licence as novice G1 under s. 29(1) of O. Reg 340/94 does not fall under a section 50.1 of the Act .
ORDER
23The respondent’s motion that the Tribunal dismiss the appellant’s appeal on the ground that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter is granted.
24The appellant’s appeal is dismissed and the scheduled hearing date of November 19, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. is vacated.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_______________________
Jan Dymond
Vice Chair
RELEASED: November 18, 2025