RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17437/MVIA
Case Name: Manouchehr Hashemi v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant: Manouchehr Hashemi, Appellant
For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent
OVERVIEW
1The appellant filed a request for reconsideration form and supporting submissions on October 3, 2025 in respect of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s (“Tribunal”) decision released on September 4, 2025 (“decision”).
2Following a teleconference hearing held on August 29, 2025, the Tribunal confirmed the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.
3Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 states that, for the Tribunal to consider whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment, the appellant must first establish that “no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available”. As such, the adjudicator made the following key finding at paragraph 19 of the decision:
I considered the testimony of both parties and find that the appellant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no alternative to the impounded car. The appellant continues to work during the impoundment period and uses alternative forms of transportation to get to work and visit family. I find that the appellant’s mom also has alternatives to the impounded vehicle for attending her medical appointments. She resides with the appellant’s sister in Ajax and with family assistance, may use public transit or taxis for this purpose.
4Since she found there was an alternative to the impounded vehicle, the adjudicator went on to conclude at paragraph 22 that: “… I need not consider the remaining factors for determining exceptional hardship”.
5The 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.
6The appellant is relying on Rule 18.2(c) to support his request. The appellant is asking the Tribunal to schedule a new hearing.
7The respondent is asking for the appellant’s request for reconsideration to be dismissed.
RESULT
8The appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
9I find the appellant has not established any grounds for reconsideration.
10The 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 requestor—in this case, the appellant—must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
11In the e-mail sent along with his request form, the appellant supports his reconsideration request by claiming that the impoundment has had a significant impact on his mother’s health. Specifically, the appellant submits that the impounded vehicle was purchased with his mother’s mobility issues in mind. He also claims that the impoundment has impacted his employment and health, as public transit and ride-sharing required him to change his work hours—changes that have negatively impacted his sleep and finances. Finally, the appellant claims that, while there are alternatives to the impounded vehicle, they are not “realistic”, e.g., long travel times, extra costs, etc.
12In reply, the appellant adds that he would like the opportunity to present new evidence to the Tribunal that will demonstrate significant hardship that the impoundment has caused. While he has been able to maintain his full-time job, the appellant submits that he has been unable to attend his part-time role. He further submits that ordering groceries through delivery services has “resulted in substantial financial strain”. Similarly, the appellant claims that he has had to borrow money during this period. Finally, the appellant argues that his mother’s medical needs have not been adequately addressed during the impoundment period, “as suitable transportation was not always available or safe for her condition.”
13Though I sympathize with the difficulties expressed by the appellant in his submissions, especially as he is attempting to navigate this process without legal help, I find the appellant has not met any of the grounds under Rule 18.2.
14Starting with the ground checked off on his request form, Rule 18.2(c) requires a party to meet the following 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”.
15First, the appellant has not included any new evidence with his reconsideration request. I understand that he is seeking a new hearing to present evidence to the Tribunal (e.g., financial records, medical documentation, etc.); however, a new hearing will only be granted after a party has established one of the criteria under Rule 18.2. Since there is no new evidence being presented with his request, the appellant has not met the test under Rule 18.2(c).
16Further, even if the appellant had presented this new evidence with his request, he has not explained how it “would likely have affected the result”. As detailed from paragraphs 12 – 19 of the decision, the adjudicator considered the financial, employment, and health impacts of the impoundment on both the appellant and his mother. As noted above, the reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, nor is it a chance to have the Tribunal re-weigh evidence considered during the hearing. While it is open to the appellant to disagree with the Tribunal’s findings, disagreement alone will not trigger Rule 18.2.
17I do note that there appears to be a new argument raised in the appellant’s reconsideration submissions, as there is no reference in the decision to the claim that the impounded vehicle was selected to accommodate his mother’s mobility needs. However, once again, there is no new evidence presented with the reconsideration request to support this claim. Additionally, the mother’s mobility issues played a key role in the hearing, as the adjudicator stated at paragraph 16 that her needs were the appellant’s “main concern”. Therefore, I further find that the appellant has not explained why evidence about the specific needs of his mother in relation to the impounded vehicle “could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it”. This branch of the Rule 18.2(c) test has not been met.
18Finally, though he only marked off Rule 18.2(c) on his request form, the scope of the appellant’s complaints meant I have turned my mind to the other two criteria under Rule 18.2. I find that the appellant’s reconsideration submissions do not show that the adjudicator’s decision lacked jurisdiction, nor was the hearing procedurally unfair. The adjudicator heard the parties’ arguments, and she weighed their evidence (with reasons). Further, though he disagrees with the adjudicator’s finding that there was an alternative to the impounded vehicle, the appellant has not directed my attention to any factual or legal errors in her decision. Once again, disagreement alone will not trigger Rule 18.2.
19Taken together, I find the appellant has not established any grounds for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
20The appellant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Released: November 18, 2025