Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17617/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:

Manav Rallay

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

Reasons for Decision

VICE-CHAIR:

Colin Osterberg

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

S Dingra, Representative

For the Respondent:

A Qanbery, Representative

HEARD: By Teleconference October 28, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Manav Rallay (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend their licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

2The Registrar alleges in its letter to the appellant dated September 2, 2025 that there is reason to believe that the appellant’s Class A licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during their Class A testing and/or training processes and that the appellant’s failure to abide by the regulatory framework that protects road safety in Ontario has undermined the confidence of the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) in the appellant’s ability and intention to drive safely.

3At the hearing, the Registrar alleged that the appellant’s Class A licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during the Class A testing process and that the Registrar’s ability to determine that the appellant’s was able to drive a commercial vehicle safely was therefore compromised.

4The Respondent denied that he was involved in any dishonesty related to the testing process and says that his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely is supported by the fact that he successfully completed the required training prior to testing and that his driving record since obtaining his Class A licence has been clear.

5The 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.

6One 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.

7Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

8At the conclusion of the hearing, I provided the parties with my decision and reasons orally and later issued a written decision. The appellant has requested written reasons for the decision and those reasons are as follows.

ISSUES

9The issue in this appeal is whether the Registrar has established sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

RESULT

10Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence and I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

11The evidence presented at the hearing establishes the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during the Class A testing and/or training processes. In particular, I am satisfied that the testing process was tainted by a payment made by someone to the appellant’s examiner in exchange for a favourable test result.

12Registrar alleges that it received information from the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) that the appellant’s licence was obtained as a result of a fraud committed during the licence testing process and in particular that the MTO received information from the OPP that the examiner who conducted the testing of the appellant had received payment in exchange for a favourable road test.

13The evidence comes from two OPP letters to the Registrar:

i. A letter dated August 19, 2025, states that the OPP has reasonable grounds to believe that approximately 250 individuals may have fraudulently obtained their Class A commercial driver’s licence including the appellant;

ii. A letter dated October 3, 2025; states that the OPP was investigating a bribery scheme in which certain commercial driver examiners were accepting cash payments in exchange for providing passing results to applicants during their commercial driver’s licence road examinations. The letter states that after an extensive examination the OPP has reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant fraudulently obtained their Class A licence in that way. Evidence including the fact that the appellant’s driver’s licence was sent to a complicit driver’s examiner and that that was a method of communication used to facilitate the sharing of applicant information to ensure the applicants that were to benefit from the bribery scheme were examined by complicit examiners and that a complicit examiner did the appellant’s road test.

14The appellant says that there is no evidence that the appellant was involved in the improper transaction. The appellant argued that at this point there is no final conclusion of the investigation and no allegation against the appellant. He argues that the Registrar’s conclusions that the appellant was involved in the bribery scheme amounts to speculation and that the appellant is being penalized for something that the Registrar is currently unable to prove.

15The appellant points out that he has a clean driving record with no history of accidents and that he has satisfied all of the MTO’s requirements to obtain a Class A licence. The driving test is in the full control of the MTO and the appellant should not be penalized for the MTO’s failure to conduct the driving test properly.

16The evidence presented in the letters from the OPP satisfy me that the road test undertaken by the appellant was tainted by a bribery scheme and was inadequate to provide satisfactory evidence of the appellant’s ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely. The facts set out by the OPP in their letters was uncontradicted by any other evidence at the hearing and sets out that the driver examiner who was taking bribes for providing favourable test results was sent the appellant’s driver’s licence and was the appellant’s examiner for the road test. This was the system used by the persons complicit in the bribery scheme and there was no other explanation offered for this having occurred involving the appellant.

17I do not find that the appellant participated in this transaction or that he knew anything about it, but I accept that the testing process is one of the primary methods by which the Registrar can be satisfied that the appellant will drive a motor vehicle safely and that the appellant’s testing process cannot provide that assurance because of the impugned transaction.

18The fact that training was completed and that there is no allegation of unsafe driving after the licence was obtained does not make up for the fact that no satisfactory testing was done. In my view testing is an important part of ensuring that drivers are safe and is the only part of the process that is in the objective control of the MTO.

19With respect to the appellant’s submission that proper testing is the responsibility of the MTO and not that of the appellant and the appellant should not be penalized for the failings of the MTO in conducting that training, in my view that is not the issue. The purpose of the Act is to ensure the safety of the public on the highway. Whether the inadequacy of the testing is due to the actions of the MTO or the appellant or some other third party, the issue is that the testing was not adequate, and the public safety not properly assured.

20I find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish that there is sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

Conclusion

21I find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence and I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ORDER

22For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.