Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17419/TSSEA & 17541/TSSEA

In the matter of an appeal under the Towing and Vehicle Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021 S.O. 2021 (the “Act”), from Cancellation Orders of its vehicle storage and tow operator certificates under the Act.

Between:

Southwest Towing Inc.

Appellant

And

Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Dagmara Szczudlo

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Abdul Mousa, Owner Zain Atcha, Counsel

For the Respondent: Patrick Moore, Counsel

Court Reporter: Charlotte St. Croix

Observers: Saeed Sidra, Articling Student Alex Qanbery, Articling Student

Heard By Videoconference: October 9 and 10, 2025

OVERVIEW

1The appellant, Southwest Towing Inc., appeals a decision of the Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards (the “respondent”) to cancel its Tow Operator Certificate and Vehicle Storage Certificate under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021 (the “Act”) and Ontario Regulation 167/23 (the “Regulation”).

2Abdul Mousa is the sole owner, president and officer of the corporation.

3The cancellation order of the tow operator certificate is dated June 10, 2025, and amended July 18, 2025 pursuant to clauses 7(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) and 37(1)(d) of the Act and ss. 9(2) and 9(3) paras. 2 & 5 of the Regulation.

4The cancellation order of the vehicle storage certificate is dated June 10, 2025, and amended July 18, 2025 pursuant to clauses 7(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) and 37(1)(d) of the Act and ss. 24(2) and 24(3) paras. 2 & 5 of the Regulation.

5The two Licence Appeal Tribunal files were combined at the August 27, 2025 case conference.

6The appellant brought a motion seeking a stay of the cancellation orders pending the outcome of the appeals before the Tribunal. In a decision released on September 25, 2025, the Tribunal denied a stay of both cancellation orders.

ISSUES

7The issues to be decided at the hearing are:

i. Has the Director established that the appellant no longer meets the qualifications and requirements prescribed for its’ tow operator and vehicle storage certificates pursuant to s. 7(1)(a) of the Act?

ii. Has the Director established that the appellant contravened or failed to comply with the Act or the regulations pursuant to s. 7(1)(b) of the Act?

iii. Has the Director established that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant is not carrying out activities under the certificate with honesty and integrity pursuant to s. 7(1)(d) of the Act?

iv. Has the Director established that there are any prescribed reasons to cancel the certificates pursuant to s. 7(1)(e) of the Act?

v. In relation to complaints, has the Director established that the appellant has contravened or failed to comply with the Act or the regulations pursuant to s. 37(1)(d) of the Act?

vi. Has the Director established that the appellant contravened or failed to comply with ss. 9(2) and 9(3), and/or ss. 24(2) & 24(3), of the Regulation?

vii. If so, is the cancellation of the tow operator certificate for the appellant appropriate?

viii. If so, is the cancellation of the vehicle storage certificate for the appellant appropriate?

RESULT

8I find that:

i. The appellant no longer meets the qualifications and requirements prescribed for the certificate under the Act and the Regulation;

iii. The appellant contravened or failed to comply with the Act and the Regulation;

iv. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the holder is not carrying out activities under the certificate with honesty and integrity; and

iv. For the prescribed reason to cancel the certificates, where the actions of a tow truck driver described in the particulars contravened section 11 of the Act, the appellant failed to ensure that persons employed or retained by the appellant complied with the Act and the Regulation, including the Code of Conduct.

9The cancellation orders for the Tow Operator Certificate and Vehicle Storage Certificate are confirmed as the appropriate outcome.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Appellant’s oral adjournment request denied

10At the onset of the hearing, I denied the appellant’s oral adjournment request.

11The appellant submitted that on October 7, 2025, the Ministry of Transportation advised via letter that the Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration (“CVOR”) certificate(s) and plate portion of permits for all commercial motor vehicles and trailers issued to the appellant be cancelled and the plate portion of permits and the number plates be seized effective October 21, 2025.

12The appellant requested an oral adjournment request to permit consolidation of appeals with the recently cancelled CVOR certificates. The appellant advised the Tribunal and the respondent in writing on October 8, 2025 that it intends to file an appeal of this CVOR cancellation and submitted that the third appeal will be similar to the appeals currently before the Tribunal and would unnecessarily replicate evidence, witnesses, and submissions. The appellant further submitted that proceeding with the oral hearing would lead to unfairness and prejudice, particularly since the CVOR cancellation occurred without any notice.

13The respondent consented to the adjournment request in principle, however, challenged the claims made by the appellant, particularly that the CVOR cancellation occurred without any notice. The respondent submitted that the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles issued a Notice of Cancellation and Seizure proposing to cancel the CVOR certificate(s) on June 27, 2025 and provided an opportunity to meet on July 17, 2025 to show cause why the cancellation and seizure should not be issued. The Deputy Registrar considered the submissions from the show cause meeting, remained concerned for highway safety, and proceeded with the cancellation.

14The respondent also argued that the current proceeding is based on the Act, whereas the CVOR cancellation is based on the Highway Traffic Act. Although there is some overlap of evidence in both proceedings, the appellant knows the case that needs to be met at this hearing, and the CVOR cancellation does not add a new element to this proceeding.

15The adjournment request was made orally, so before considering the merits of the request, Rule 16.2 requires that I must first be satisfied that there are “compelling circumstances where the party did not and could not have known of the circumstances giving rise to the adjournment request prior to the event”.

16Although the respondent consented to the adjournment, consent is not determinative. The Tribunal has control of its own process, and I was not satisfied that the request meets the requirement of Rule 16.2 because the Registrar of Motor Vehicles issued a Notice of Cancellation and Seizure proposing to cancel the CVOR certificate(s) on June 27, 2025. The appellant knew that a cancellation was a possibility well in advance of the hearing and could have requested a written adjournment. Additionally, I am not persuaded that the Tribunal would permit appeals under two different statutes to proceed together to one hearing as this may introduce unintended complexity for the hearing adjudicator. Therefore, I did not consider the adjournment request on its merits and proceeded with the hearing.

The respondent’s request for an exclusion order was granted

17I granted the respondent’s request for an exclusion order on the first day of the hearing.

18The respondent requested that communications with the appellant’s witness, Mr. Tariq Mehmud be limited to prevent discussion of testimony from the first day of the hearing.

19The appellant did not object to the exclusion order.

20I granted the exclusion order and the appellant was instructed not to share details of testimony from the first day of the hearing with Mr. Mehmud who was scheduled to testy on the second day of the hearing.

The Law

21Section 7(1) of the Act authorizes the Registrar to suspend or cancel certificates for tow operators, tow truck drivers, and vehicle storage operators. The grounds for doing so are set out in subsections (a) through (f) of section 7(1). Subsection 7(1)(a) provides grounds for cancellation if the Director is satisfied that the holder no longer meets the qualifications and requirements prescribed for the certificate. Subsection 7(1)(b) provides grounds for cancellation if the Director is satisfied that the appellant contravened or failed to comply with the Act or the Regulation. Subsection 7(1)(d) provides grounds for cancellation if the Director is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the holder is not carrying out activities under the certificate with honesty and integrity. Subsection 7(1)(e) provides grounds for cancellation if the Director is satisfied that there is any prescribed reason.

22The Registrar’s Order may be confirmed, modified or set aside by the Tribunal under s. 37(4) of the Regulation.

23For the Tribunal to confirm the Order for grounds under subsection 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b), and 7(1)(e), the respondent must prove the grounds subject to a standard of proof on a balance of probabilities.

24For the Tribunal to confirm the Order for grounds set out in s. 7(1)(d), there is a separate statutory standard of proof. The respondent must prove there is objective, compelling and credible information about the person’s past and present conduct, which affords a reason to believe that the appellant will not conduct itself in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. The standard of proof, being “reason to believe”, is a lower standard than the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) standard commonly applied in administrative tribunal matters.

Evidence and ANALYSIS

Respondent’s Evidence

25The respondent submits that there are multiple grounds for cancellation of the appellant’s tow operator and vehicle storage certificates outlined in the NOP, specifically clauses 7(1)(a), (b), (d) & (e) and 37(1)(d) of the Act and subsections 24(2) & 24(3), paragraphs 2 and 5 of the Regulation. The cancellations are based on the grounds that the certificate holder:

i. committed contraventions of the Act and its Regulations,

ii. failed to satisfy the qualifications and requirements of the Act and the Regulation,

iii. failed to comply with a term or condition of its certificates, including the obligation to comply with the Code of Conduct,

iv. where the actions of a tow truck driver are described in paragraphs 4 to 35 of the NOP, contravened section 11 of the Act by failing to ensure that persons employed or engaged by it complied with the Act and the Regulation, including the Code of Conduct.

26The respondent further submits that there is information that:

i. The Commercial Vehicle Operator Record for the appellant generated on September 4, 2025 (“CVOR Record”) shows an 81.29% overall violation rate;

ii. The appellant has a high number of complaints compared to its peers since enforcement of the Act went into effect. The complaints originate from insurance companies, the police, and the public;

iii. The appellant operated from 42 Stafford Dr., Brampton, a location which is leased from 4 Wheel Auto Collision and shared with the following businesses according to the Inquiry Services System, Towing and Storage (“ISS-TS”):

1. 2345098 Ontario Inc. a/o New4Wheels Auto Collision

2. 2845011 Ontario Inc. a/o FL Recovery

iv. There is an undisclosed affiliation between the appellant, 2845011 Ontario Inc. o/a: FL Recovery, and 2345098 Ontario Inc. o/a New4wheels Autocollision which had its CVOR certificate cancelled by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles in February 2024 and as a result, cannot offer towing services;

v. The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar’s decision to cancel the CVOR certificate for 2345098 Ontario Inc., then o/a Front Line Towing Services in a decision released on September 9, 2024;

vi. 10 tow trucks previously leased by 2345098 Ontario Inc. were leased by the appellant when the CVOR certificate issued to 2345098 Ontario Inc. was cancelled by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. The appellant’s leases for these vehicles were co-signed by a director of 2345098 Ontario Inc., Koneswaran Sangarasivam; and

vii. Multiple drivers who previously worked for 2345098 Ontario Inc. started to work for the appellant when their former employer’s CVOR certificate was cancelled.

27The respondent relies on the testimony of Andrew Gill, Senior Regulatory Compliance Administrator who testified that the Act was introduced to regulate the tow truck industry and address consumer exploitation, criminality, violence, and road safety. He became involved with the appellant during certificate renewals and observed a high number of complaints associated with the company, which was unusual given the fact that the Act became effective January 1, 2024 and it was uncommon to see more than one complaint per operator.

28Mr. Gill also testified that other company names were referenced in complaints against the appellant and as a result, he investigated the company address and found that there were five certificate holders at the address listed for the appellant. According to the leases provided by the appellant to the Ministry of Transportation, the single municipal address (42 Stafford Rd., Brampton) had been sub-leased with multiple ‘units’ and the appellant received a significantly reduced rate for their premises from their landlord, New4Wheels Auto Collision.

29Mr. Gill described the close association between 2345098 Ontario Inc. a/o New4Wheels Auto Collision and the appellant during his testimony. Specifically, that:

i. Koneswaran Sangarasivam, a director at 2345098 Ontario Inc. was the appellant’s landlord at 42 Stafford Dr., Brampton;

ii. 2345098 Ontario Inc. paid monthly lease payments for 183 Rutherford Road South, Brampton, the location for Post Collision Group Inc. (a separate company in which Abdul Mohsen Amen Mousa is a director);

iii. 10 tow trucks previously leased by 2345098 Ontario Inc. were leased by the appellant when the CVOR certificate issued to 2345098 Ontario Inc. was cancelled by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. The appellant’s leases for these vehicles were co-signed by a director of 2345098 Ontario Inc., Koneswaran Sangarasivam;

iv. Drivers who previously worked for 2345098 Ontario Inc. started to work for the appellant when their former employer’s CVOR certificate was cancelled; and

v. The close association between the 2345098 Ontario Inc. and the appellant suggests that a discredited operator (Koneswaran Sangarasivam) who no longer has a tow operator’s certificate, is effectively in control of the appellant’s business and utilizes Southwest Towing Inc. to tow vehicles to body shops operated by 2345098 Ontario Inc.

30Mr. Gill referred to a Director’s request letter dated April 2, 2025 which advised the appellant that the Towing and Vehicle Storage Oversight (“TVSO”) office received numerous complaints and requested a response and specific information from the appellant. The appellant responded to this letter on May 1, 2025 and provided clarifications. Mr. Gill highlighted the appellant’s response in relation to a request for a copy of any records relating to the disclosure required under section 36 of Ontario Regulation 167/23 which stated: “the only facility that would be recommended would be that of 4 Wheels Auto Collision. However, it was our understanding, as no commission or referrals are exchanged between either party, records of such were not kept.”

31Section 36(2) of the Regulation requires operators to disclose the nature of the interest and the benefits that are due to an operator as a result of making a referral to a facility or business and requires the operator to make a written record of the disclosure that was made. Mr. Gill testified that the appellant’s response dated May 1, 2025 contained a false statement because although the appellant claims that incentives don’t exist, Southwest Towing Inc. received a financial guarantee for tow truck leases, a significant discount on their office lease at 42 Stafford Dr. and acquired tow truck drivers from 2345098 Ontario Inc. in exchange for referrals to 4 Wheels Auto Collision.

32Mr. Gill also described complaints received in relation to the appellant, as well as the appellant’s CVOR violation rate based on a report generated on September 4, 2025. According to this record, Southwest Towing Inc. has an overall violation rate of 81.29 % and repeated convictions for soliciting services at the scene of an accident which presents a risk to the public. Mr. Gill testified that one of the objectives of the Act was to stop this practice and prevent tow truck drivers from racing to the scene of an accident.

33Finally, Mr. Gill testified that a tow truck driver for the appellant, Gurmehtab Cheema was not permitted to drive a tow truck in Ontario and relies on a Refusal to Issue a Tow Driver Certificate letter dated February 8, 2024 for this driver. Despite not possessing a valid tow driver certificate, Mr. Cheema was involved in a motor vehicle collision on April 28, 2024 while driving a tow truck belonging to the appellant (licence plate BZ13717). Mr. Gill noted that this is a direct violation of s. 11(2) of the Act because the appellant employed or engaged a person as a tow truck driver when the person was not a holder of a valid tow driver certificate.

Appellant’s Evidence

34The appellant submits that the Director acted with procedural haste, did not give Southwest Towing Inc. an opportunity to correct noted deficiencies, and has not proven the allegation of affiliation with New4Wheels Auto Collision. The appellant argued that the organization did not co-mingle funds, cede authority, nor share ownership with New4Wheels Auto Collision and shared space and parallel timing are insufficient to establish operational control in administrative law. The appellant did not provide an authority in support of this point of law.

35The appellant relies on the testimony of Tariq Mehmud, Safety and Compliance Consultant who testified that he was retained to respond to the Director’s request letter, provide proof of insurance, and to represent the appellant at the show-cause meeting with the Director. Mr. Mehmud testified that he reviewed the appellant’s operations, noted the high overall violation rate, and recommended additional training for drivers and improvements in record keeping. He admitted that neither an improvement action plan, nor driver training has been completed yet because the appellant is not permitted to operate pending the outcome of the appeal.

36The appellant also relies on the testimony of Abdul Mousa, Owner of the company, who testified that he has been in the towing business between 18-20 years and started two companies: Southwest Towing Inc. and Post Collision Group Inc. Mr. Mousa negotiated the original lease on the 183 Rutherford Rd., Brampton location and began occupancy of the space from August 1, 2021. He met Mr. Koneswaran Sangarasivam in 2023 and offered to sub-lease him space at this location when one of his tenants vacated space in this lot. Mr. Mousa testified that since Mr. Sangarasivam utilized most of the space at 183 Rutherford Rd., Brampton, it made sense for the lease payment to be made by Mr. Sangarasivam’s company (2345098 Ontario Inc.) and for Southwest Towing Inc. to pay Mr. Sangarasivam for space instead, particularly since the appellant had only two tow trucks. In time, Mr. Sangarasivam obtained a lease at 42 Stafford Dr., Brampton and made an agreement to sub-let space to the appellant at this location.

37Mr. Mousa testified that he had a friendly business relationship with Mr. Sangarasivam and he did not realize that this could be perceived as trying to “twist the system”. Initially, he was not aware that the CVOR certificate for 2345098 Ontario Inc. had been cancelled and was told that 2345098 Ontario Inc. was moving on to insurance preferred work instead. Mr. Mousa realized that there was a change in circumstances for 2345098 Ontario Inc. once a number of tow trucks were transferred to his company in 2024.

38The appellant moved to 42 Stafford Dr. location in December 2023 and at the time, operated as a vehicle storage location because the company did not have any functional tow trucks due to prior collisions. Mr. Mousa was looking to acquire two tow trucks as replacements and Mr. Sangarasivam offered to co-sign leases which allowed the appellant to expand operations significantly in a matter of months.

39Mr. Mousa testified that he seized an opportunity to grow his business, and this was not done with malicious intent. In hindsight, he realizes that he did not understand the implications of working with a carrier who’s CVOR certificate has been cancelled. He testified that paying reduced rent at 42 Stafford Dr. was not a form of compensation but reciprocal cooperation between colleagues in related businesses.

40Finally, Mr. Mousa testified that he acknowledges the high violation rate for his company. He stated that he gave the drivers a lot of leeway and was not notified of their driving infractions. He stated that he attempted to grow the business too quickly, should have had more oversight in day-to-day operations, and wishes he hired a Compliance Consultant earlier. He also highlights that he did not have any Highway Traffic Act violations when he drove a tow truck and is a law-abiding citizen who is seeking another opportunity to learn from his mistakes.

Contraventions of the Act, the Regulation, and provisions of the Highway Traffic Act

41I find the respondent met its burden and demonstrated that the appellant contravened or failed to comply with the Act or the regulations pursuant to s. 7(1)(b) and no longer meets the qualifications and requirements prescribed for the certificate as per s. 7(1)(a) of the Act.

42The respondent has the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, at least one of the grounds set out in the NOP.

43I find that Mr. Gill’s testimony regarding complaints, CVOR violation rate, convictions, and close association between 2345098 Ontario Inc. o/a New4Wheels Auto Collision is confirmed by the documentary evidence provided by the respondent.

44I find the CVOR Record to be persuasive in analyzing whether the certificate holder no longer meets the qualifications and requirements prescribed for the certificate, particularly in relation the overall violation rate of 81.29% for the company. According to the Carrier Sanctions and Investigations Office Statistics – 2025, only 0.13% of the total registered carriers in Ontario (83 out of 61,773) have a violation rate between 70 and 85%. Based on this information, I find that Southwest Towing Inc. has a high violation rate in relation to its peers and this violation rate presents a risk to the driving public.

45I am also persuaded by the sanctions and convictions included in the CVOR Record because this information confirms that multiple drivers for the appellant have a documented history related to violations of the Act and the Highway Traffic Act. The CVOR Record for the appellant shows that between August 2023 and August 2025, vehicles belonging to the company were involved in four collisions and acquired 16 convictions under the Act. I find that the appellant did not take an active role as an employer to ensure that employees/contractors working for the company drive safely and do not endanger the driving public while carrying out their duties. While it is rare to encounter a spotless driving record and that is not an expectation, an employer must provide oversight and access readily available information such as driver’s abstracts to monitor driver performance and take active steps to limit liability to its operating licence.

46I also find that, on a balance of probabilities, the appellant employed or engaged Gurmehtab Cheema, as a tow truck driver when the person was not a holder of a valid tow driver certificate. A review of correspondence provided by appellant dated May 1, 2025 indicates that licence plate BZ13717 is identified as belonging to a tow truck operating for the company. Based on the Motor Vehicle Collison report, which was entered as an exhibit by the respondent, I find that Gurmehtab Cheema was operating a tow truck with this licence plate when he was involved in a collision on April 28, 2024. I agree that on this date, Mr. Cheema no longer held a valid tow truck driver certificate, and do not accept the appellant’s explanation that this driver was engaged by a separate entity (a mechanic) to test drive the tow truck after repairs. The appellant did not serve evidence that a tow truck with this licence plate was under repair on or about April 28, 2024 and I have no basis to accept this version of events. I agree with the respondent that this is a direct violation of s. 11(2) of the Act because the appellant employed or engaged a person as a tow truck driver when the person was not a holder of a valid tow driver certificate. Therefore, the respondent has proven two grounds outlined in the NOP.

47As the respondent needs only to prove one ground to uphold the refusal, I have not analysed the remaining grounds nor evidence related to the other grounds.

Registrar’s decision to cancel the appellant’s tow operator certificate and vehicle storage operator certificate is confirmed

48I confirm the cancellation of the appellant’s tow operator and vehicle storage operator certificates.

49Section 37(4) of the Regulation provides that the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the Decision of the respondent.

50The respondent asks the Tribunal to confirm the decision of the Director and opposes the re-instatement of the appellant’s certificates with conditions due to the severity of the appellant’s violation record. The respondent further submits that the Act is intended to be remedial legislation designed to address a severe problem in the towing and vehicle storage industry. By design, the Act is not as forgiving as the previous municipal by-law regime and was intended to deliver “strong medicine” and effect meaningful change in the industry. The respondent submits that the response to the appellant’s conduct must be sufficiently severe to reflect the reality of what occurred and set a high standard for conduct in the industry.

51The appellant asks the Tribunal to set aside the decision of the Director and re-instate both the tow operator and vehicle storage certificates with conditions. The appellant seeks a condition to continue operations with one truck and one driver and proposes to relocate to an independently accessed facility within 30-90 days, separate from New4Wheels Auto Collision and FL Recovery. The appellant further agrees to appoint an independent compliance monitor acceptable to the Director and an automatic snap back clause mandating immediate suspension for non-compliance in order to preserve capacity to continue operations/preserve livelihood.

52As I have found that the appellant committed contraventions of the Act and the Regulation and failed to satisfy the qualifications and requirements of the Act and the Regulation, I must now determine if the cancellation order was the appropriate order or if it should be modified or set aside.

53The evidence before me, particularly related to the undisclosed affiliation between the appellant and 2345098 Ontario Inc., a former tow operator who had it’s CVOR certificate cancelled, prevents me from modifying the Director’s order. I find that the Director has a valid reason to believe that there was an affiliation between the parties. While this may be unacknowledged by Mr. Mousa, I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the intent of this affiliation for 2345098 Ontario Inc. was to circumvent a cancellation of it’s CVOR certificate and, in an effort to grow his business, the appellant became a party to this deception.

54While I found Mr. Mousa to be genuine and deserving of an opportunity to learn from his mistakes, I am not assured that permitting the appellant to continue to operate with 1 tow truck and 1 driver will prevent a re-occurrence of additional problematic affiliations. I understand that the loss of both certificates is significant and sympathize with Mr. Mousa but find that continued operation at a significantly reduced scale will leave his company vulnerable to unequal partnerships in the future based on conduct established to date.

55In addition, I have no evidence to establish that reducing the operation of the appellant’s company to one truck and one driver will address the safety concerns raised by the Registrar nor how the operation of one truck would minimize the risk to other road users.

56Having considered all of the evidence, I confirm the cancellation of the appellant’s tow operator and vehicle storage operator certificates.

ORDER

57Pursuant to s. 37(4) of the Regulation made under the Act, I confirm the decision of the respondent to cancel the appellant’s Tow Operator Certificate and Vehicle Storage Certificate.

Released: November 24, 2025

__________________________

Dagmara Szczudlo

Adjudicator