Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17628/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) of the Act.

Between:

Prabhjot Singh Dhami

Appellant

and

Minister of Transportation and Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondents

REASONS FOR DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Genevieve Painchaud

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Prabhjot Singh Dhami, Appellant Soninder Dhingra, Friend of the Appellant Gurinder Multani, Paralegal (did not attend)

For the Respondent: Pianchu Gao, Counsel

HEARD: By Teleconference October 29, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Prabhjot Singh Dhami (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar””) to suspend their Class A driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

2The appellant was represented by Soninder Dhingra, who described himself as a friend of the appellant.

3The representative of the Registrar who appeared at the hearing confirmed that they were also acting in the capacity of representative of the Minister of Transportation (the “Minister”) for the purposes of this hearing.

4At the appellant’s request, and after considering the respondent’s position, I added the decision of the Registrar to downgrade their Class A(Z) driver’s licence to Class G(Z) as an issue to this appeal.

5I also issued a confidentiality order with respect to certain documents presented at the hearing.

6At the conclusion of the hearing, I reserved on my decision.

Decision

7Pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Act, on November 3, 2025, the Tribunal released a written decision ordering the following, effective immediately:

i. The Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence is confirmed.

ii. The Registrar’s decision to downgrade the appellant’s Class A(Z) driver’s licence to Class G(Z) is confirmed.

iii. Pages 6, 9, and 10 of the respondent’s submissions filed at the hearing as Exhibit 1 shall be treated as confidential and not disclosed to the public.

iv. A party seeking reconsideration of this decision must do so in writing no more than 14 days after the date of this order.

v. If a party wishes to make a request for written reasons, it shall make this request to the Tribunal no more than 14 days after the date of the hearing. The request for written reasons must be made in writing and be directed to the Tribunal’s Registrar at LATregistrar@ontario.ca. If written reasons are so requested, the Tribunal will provide written reasons in due course. The date the Tribunal’s written reasons are issued shall be the date of the decision for the purposes of a request for reconsideration under Rule 18 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”).

REQUEST FOR WRITTEN DECISION WITH REASONS

8On November 9, 2025, Gurinder Multani, who had previously filed a Declaration of Representative as paralegal for the appellant, sent a request to the Tribunal for a written decision and reasons.

9A written decision had previously been provided and the written reasons are now provided as per the appellant’s request.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: Confidentiality Order

10At the commencement of the hearing the Registrar requested, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules, an order to limit public access to pages 6, 9 and 10 of its submissions. The Registrar submitted that those pages contain confidential information of an Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) investigation that is still ongoing and some of the information in that letter could interfere with it.

11The appellant did not have any objection to a confidentiality order to those pages.

12The Tribunal’s adjudicative records are generally open to the public, in accordance with the open court principle and s. 2(1) of the Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, S.O. 2019, c. 7, Sch. 60 (“TARA”). However, s. 2(2) of TARA provides that the Tribunal may order that all or part of an adjudicative record be treated as confidential and not disclosed to the public if the Tribunal determines that matters contained in the record are of such a nature that the public interest or the interest of a person served by avoiding disclosure outweighs the desirability of adhering to the principle that the record be available to the public.

13The Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, held that the following requirements must be met before placing limits on the open court principle:

i. court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest

ii. the order sought is necessary to prevent this serious risk to the identified interest because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent this risk; and

iii. as a matter of proportionality, the benefits of the order outweigh its negative effect.

14I find that the correspondence from the OPP at pages 6 and 9 of the Registrar’s submissions contain information regarding an ongoing OPP investigation including many people’s names and details that could impact the investigation if made public. As a result, I find that they should be excluded from the public record on the basis that they involve matters of public security and to preserve the integrity of an ongoing investigation which outweigh the need for openness.

15As pages 6, 9 and 10 contain information regarding an ongoing OPP investigation, I ordered a non-public order of those three pages, on consent of the parties, so that they be excluded from the public record on the basis that they involve matters involving public security.

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 Minister established sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act?

ANALYSIS

17In a letter dated September 2, 2025, the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles sent a letter to the appellant ordering the suspension of his Class A Ontario driver’s licence as it had reason to believe it was obtained as a result of his dishonesty during the testing and/or training process under s. 47(1) of the Act for a period of 90 days. The letter also advised of the appellant’s right to appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal pursuant to s. 50(1) of the Act.

18On October 10, 2025, a further letter was sent by the Registrar to the appellant advising that his suspension would come to an end on October 14, 2025, and that on that date, his Ontario Class A(Z) driver’s licence would be downgraded to Class G(Z) to ensure ongoing road safety based on evidence of dishonesty during the Class A testing process. At the hearing, the Minister advised that the downgrade was done pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

19The October 10 letter explained that in order to upgrade to a Class A licence, the appellant must complete a vision test, knowledge test and a practical and road test. It again advised of the appellant’s right to appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal pursuant to s. 50(1) of the Act.

Issue i: The Suspension of the Appellant’s Licence

20I find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reasons to suspend the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence.

21The 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).”

22The Registrar submits that the “sufficient reason” being relied upon is public safety.

23One 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.

24I 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.

25In support of its position, the Registrar submitted a letter from the OPP Serious Fraud Office to the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) dated August 19, 2025 which advised the MTO of “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 the OPP had reason to believe may have fraudulently obtained their Class A commercial driver’s licence. However, the Registrar did not submit that list of names.

26The Registrar further submitted a letter from the OPP Serious Fraud Office dated October 3, 2025 alleging that the OPP had reasonable grounds to believe based on evidence collected, including text messages, 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 providing passing results. Attached to that letter was a photo of the appellant’s driver’s licence which the appellant confirmed was his, although he does not know who took the photo or circumstances around it.

27The Registrar alleges that the OPP letters establish that, regardless of if the appellant was aware of the scheme, the appellant obtained his Class A driver’s licence through a bribery scheme between the driving school and the driving examiner.

28The appellant denies the allegations that he was involved and states that he acted honestly and lawfully in the testing process.

29The appellant explained that he initially enrolled in a training program and the school booked three road tests for him. He was unsuccessful in all three attempts. Due to repeated failures at the same test centre, he decided to change schools to attempt his road test at a different test centre. His road test was scheduled by his school and he successfully completed it in January 2023 at a different test centre and was issued a Class A licence.

30The appellant argues that the documents from the OPP are speculative and that the Registrar cannot rely on evidence that has not gone through court.

31He adds that he has a work permit based on his trucking licence and is not currently working. He has completed his vision and knowledge tests as required in the letter of October 10, 2025, but has yet to complete his practical tests. He is concerned of the impact of a suspension on his record.

32I accept the Registrar’s position that on a balance of probabilities, the evidence presented establishes there are reasonable grounds to believe fraud was involved in the appellant obtaining his Class A driver’s licence. Therefore, I find the road test results are unreliable which rise to potential issues with public safety as the appellant has not been properly road tested.

33The Registrar is no longer alleging that the appellant was directly complicit in the fraud, but simply that the driving test examiner and the school were. I do not make a finding on if the appellant was complicit in the fraud, but only that on a balance of probabilities, there was fraud involved in the obtention of his Class A licence and that therefore the result of the practical test are not reliable.

34The appellant argues that the Tribunal must wait for the court to render a decision, on a matter that may not even yet be in front of it, and possibly have a different standard of proof, before being able to make a determination based on the evidence. I do not accept the appellant’s unsupported position that the Registrar cannot rely on documents from the OPP which have not gone through the courts as this runs counter to the intent of its authority to suspend or cancel driver’s licences under s. 47(1) for public safety. This was not a complete cancellation of a licence but an interim suspension.

35I therefore find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reasons to suspend the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence.

36The Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence is confirmed.

Issue ii: The Downgrade of the Appellant’s Driver’s Licence

37The appellant requested that the issue of the downgrade of the driver’s licence be added to the appeal.

38The Minister opposed the addition of this issue arguing it falls under different authority, but that it had the authority to deal with both. It was simply not ready to argue both issues today.

39I find that the two issues are interlinked as the suspension ended and a downgrade was imposed instead. Therefore, it would not be efficient to separate these in two hearings as the same evidence would be used for both. I asked the respondent if a recess of 30 minutes would allow enough time to prepare to argue both issues today and it confirmed it was enough time. I therefore allowed for a 30-minute recess and then proceeded to hear both matters.

40The respondent relies on s. 32(5)(b)(i) which provides that:

The Minister may require an applicant for a driver’s licence or an endorsement or a person who holds a driver’s licence to submit to the examinations that are authorized by the regulations at the times and places required by the Minister and to meet other prescribed requirements, and the Minister may,

(b) in the case of a person who holds a driver’s licence,

(i) impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any conditions or endorsements or change the class or classes of driver’s licence held by the person, in accordance with the results of the examinations and other prescribed requirements.

41It also relies on O. Reg. 340/94 (the “Regulation”) under the Act related to driver’s licences which provides at s.15:

(1) An examination of an applicant for or a holder of any class of driver’s licence, including a driver’s licence with or without any endorsement, condition or waiver, or an examination in relation to any endorsement, condition or waiver may include,

(a) an examination of the person’s knowledge of the Act and the regulations under it;

(b) a demonstration of the person’s ability to drive safely a motor vehicle of a class authorized to be driven by the class of licence applied for or held;

(c) a demonstration of the person’s ability to operate safely a motor vehicle of a class authorized to be driven by the class of licence applied for and that is equipped with air brakes, or a combination of such a motor vehicle and towed vehicles;

(d) an examination of a person’s knowledge of air brakes, their functions and safe operation for the class of licence applied for or held; and

(e) medical and physical examinations, tests and procedures to determine the person’s fitness to drive or to determine whether the person meets the qualifications prescribed by section 14, 17, 18, 21.1, 21.2 or 21.3.

(1.1) It is a condition of a driver’s licence that the holder submit to the examinations required under subsection (1) at such times as the Minister may require.

42The Minister submits that as the case evolved, it amended its position and that a downgrade of the driver’s licence was more appropriate than a suspension to ensure public safety as the road test was unreliable due to a fraudulent scheme.

43The Minister’s position is that it had the authority under s. 32(5)(b)(i) to downgrade the appellant’s licence which was reasonable since it was obtained in a fraudulent scheme and there was no other way to ensure a proper road test was done. It also relies on s.15(1) and s. 15(1.1) of the Regulation to request an examination at any time it requires.

44The appellant argues that s. 32(5)(b)(i) and s.15(1) do not apply as he is not considered an applicant, but a licence holder and that therefore these sections are not appropriate.

45I already found that on a balance of probabilities, based on the evidence presented, there are reasonable grounds to believe fraud was involved in the appellant obtaining his Class A driver’s licence. I also found the road test results unreliable which rise to potential issues with public safety.

46I agree with the Minister that it has the authority under s. 32(5)(b)(i) to change the class of driver’s licence of a person who holds a driver’s licence and may require them to submit to examinations and that the Regulation also applies to holders of licences and not simply new applicants. I also find s. 15(1) and s. 15 (1.1) apply to licence holders and not only new licence applicants based on those precise words being in the section.

47Since I have found that the road test result was unreliable due to fraud involved, I find the respondent has established sufficient reasons to downgrade the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act. I find that without any road testing done, the respondent cannot ensure competence and public safety and that requiring the test be conducted again is reasonable.

CONCLUSION

48I find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence and the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence is confirmed.

49I find that the Minister has satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant’s licence and the Minister’s decision to downgrade the appellant’s Class A(Z) driver’s licence to Class G(Z) is confirmed.