Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

An appeal under Section 50(1.0.1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from a cancellation and seizure order from the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under sections 47 and 47.1 of the Act

Between:

GN Towing Inc. o/a Gary’s Towing

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

VICE-CHAIR: Geneviève Painchaud

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: No appearances

For the Respondent: Amanda Logan, Senior Regulatory Compliance Administrator Patrick Moore, Counsel

Reporter: Kelli Ryan

Heard by Videoconference: October 30, 2025

BACKGROUND

1GN Towing Inc. o/a Gary’s Towing (the “appellant” or “GN Towing Inc.”) appeals to this Tribunal under s. 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from a Cancellation and Seizure Order of the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar” or “respondent”) dated May 14, 2025, and amended on July 9, 2025 (the “Order”) issued pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Act canceling the Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration (“CVOR”) certificate(s) and the plate portion of permits and number plates for all commercial motor vehicles and trailers registered to:

i. CVOR# 172-115-888, GN Towing Inc. o/a Gary’s Towing

ii. Affiliate: CVOR# 196-023-718, Stealth Transport Express Inc.

2Mr. Jagroop Singh is the sole owner and director of GN Towing Inc. o/a Gary’s Towing and the sole owner and director of Stealth Transport Express Inc.

3The respondent alleges that there is reason to believe that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and any other laws relating to highway safety, and that GN Towing Inc. and 2017210 Ontario Inc., a company whose CVOR was previously cancelled, have been doing business as a single operator.

4While the Cancellation and Seizure order named Stealth Transport Express Inc. (“Stealth”), Stealth is not a party to this appeal, as it was GN Towing Inc. who appealed this matter. As a result, this decision only addresses the cancellations/seizures of GN Towing Inc.’s plates and registration, and it does not impact Stealth’s plates/registration.

5The respondent bears the onus of convincing the Tribunal that there is reason for such belief. Amanda Logan, Senior Regulatory Compliance Administrator for the Ministry of Transportation, was the sole witness for the respondent at the hearing.

6Section 50(2) of the Act allows the Tribunal to confirm, modify or set aside the order or decision of the Registrar.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

7At the start of the hearing, Zain Atcha, counsel, advised that he had not been able to reach Jagroop Singh, the owner of GN Towing Inc. o/a Gary’s Towing for the past month after leaving multiple messages, and he did not expect him to appear today. Mr. Atcha was retained to appear at the case conference on the appellant’s behalf and address a prior motion but did not have a retainer for the hearing nor did he have instructions to proceed nor to ask for an adjournment.

8The Tribunal attempted to call Mr. Singh and there was no answer and no voicemail. An email was also sent to which there was no response. I waited 30 minutes before starting the hearing as per Rule 3.7.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules which allows the hearing to proceed in the absence of a party and confirmed that notice had been given.

9The respondent submitted that the hearing should proceed as there was no request for adjournment, no explanation for the absence, nor documents filed by the appellant as per the case conference report and order (“CCRO”) released on August 15, 2025. It appears Mr. Singh was not present at the case conference either.

10The respondent also submits that there is a stay pending the appeal, and therefore, this matter should be held expeditiously for public safety and that this appeal was filed in June 2025.

11I agree with the respondent’s position and as a result I decided to proceed with hearing the appeal.

12Mr. Atcha left the hearing, and the respondent proceeded to present its case.

ISSUES

13The issues in this appeal are:

(a) Is there reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the appellant and any other relevant information, that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety?

(b) If the answer to the first issue is yes, what is the appropriate outcome?

RESULT

14For the reasons that follow, I find:

(a) There is reason to believe that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety; and

(b) This is not an appropriate case for conditions and conditions have not been requested. I therefore confirm the Registrar’s order to cancel the appellant’s CVOR certificate and cancel and seize the plate portion of permits and number plates for all commercial motor vehicles registered in its name.

LAW

15Under s. 47(1) of the Act, the Registrar may, by order, suspend or cancel a CVOR certificate and the plate portion of a permit on several grounds.

16The Tribunal owes no deference to the Registrar in arriving at its decision.

Section 47(1)(f) of the Act

17The respondent relies on s. 47(1)(f) which provides that one of the grounds for suspension or cancellation is if the Registrar has reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the holder or of a person related to the holder, and any other information that the Registrar considers relevant, that the holder will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety.

18The respondent submits that the grounds under s. 47(f) are that GN Towing Inc. and 2017210 Ontario Inc. have been doing business as a single operator and are, therefore, considered related and that the appellant has a high violation rate on its CVOR.

19According to the Court of Appeal in Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario) v. 751809 Ontario Inc. (Famous Flesh Gordon’s), 2013 ONCA 157, the issue is whether those facts afford reasonable grounds for belief that the business will not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. The “reasonable grounds to believe” standard requires something more than mere suspicion but less than proof on a balance of probabilities. In other words, the Registrar does not have to show that the conduct of the appellant makes it more likely than not that it will not carry on business as required. The Registrar need only show that there are reasonable grounds for belief that it will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act.

20According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40 at para. 114, reasonable grounds for belief must be more than mere suspicion and will be found to exist where there is an objective basis for the belief which is based on compelling and credible information.

21Further, there must be a nexus between the past conduct in issue and the appellant’s ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the laws relating to highway safety: see CS v Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, 2019 ONSC 1652 (Div. Ct.) at para. 32.

Section 47(1)(g) of the Act

22At the hearing, the respondent also relied on s. 47(1)(g) of the Act as grounds for issuing the Order, due to non-payment of fines. This section provides that the Registrar may suspend or cancel the CVOR certificate and the plate portion of the permit for any other sufficient reason not articulated in subsections 47(1)(d), (e), or (f).

23Although “sufficient reason” is not defined in Act for these purposes, what constitutes sufficient or insufficient reason ought to be considered in the context of the legislation and its regulations, which is to promote public safety on provincial highways.

24In reviewing the CCRO released August 15, 2025, and the amended cancellation and seizure orders, I am concerned that s. 47(1)(g) has not been articulated as a ground for the orders nor an issue which I am to decide on at this hearing. I am concerned that the grounds of appeal were changed without sufficient notice to the appellant, who was not present at the hearing.

25The CCRO states that this appeal is based on s. 47(1)(f) only.

26The May 14, 2025 notice of cancellation and seizure does include the outstanding fines as a reason for the proposed action of the Deputy Registrar, but more specifically:

i. It is the opinion of the Deputy Registrar that GN Towing Inc. and 2017210 Ontario Inc. have been doing business as a single operator.

ii. It is the opinion of the Deputy Registrar that GN Towing Inc will not operate commercial motor vehicles in accordance with the Highway Traffic Act, its regulations and other laws related to highway safety.

27The May 27, 2025 cancellation and seizure order (and the amended order of the same day), and the amended cancelation and seizure order of July 9, 2025 do not mention the outstanding fines specifically anymore, but gives the description of the ground under s. 47(1)(f) for the cancellation and seizure order.

28The fact that s.47(1)(g) as a ground was not indicated anywhere in evidence is a concern due to the appellant being absent from the hearing, and unable to object to the adding of a ground that the respondent is relying on or respond to the new grounds.

29The respondent made clear that its position is that non-payment of fines falls under s. 47(1)(g) and in doing so, I find it resiled from taking the position that it falls under s.47(1)(f).

30While evidence was presented to establish $6,284.52 in outstanding fines, I find it procedurally unfair to the appellant to consider it in this appeal for the reasons stated above and as the respondent did not provide advance notice that it was relying on s. 47(1)(g), especially on the absence of the appellant, and I will not evaluate this appeal under this ground.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

31For the reasons that follow, I find the respondent has established that the appellant’s safety record, and it being related to 2017210 Ontario Inc, provide reason to believe that it will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety.

GN Towing Inc. is related to 2017210 Ontario Inc.

32Per 2017210 Ontario Inc. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 87724, the company 2017210 Ontario Inc.,2017210 Ontario Inc. has had its CVOR certificates cancelled and the plate portion of the permits and number plates for all commercial motor vehicles and trailers registered seized. The respondent submits that GN Towing Inc. o/a Gary’s Towing is related to 2017210 Ontario Inc.

33The respondent points to s. 17(4)(c) and (d) of the Act which provides that an applicant is related to a person for the purpose of subsection (3) if:

(c) either the applicant or the person, directly or indirectly, controls or controlled or manages or managed the other; or

(d) the applicant and the person have or have had common officers or directors or they are or have been controlled, directly or indirectly, by the same shareholders.

[34] Section 47(2.1) of the Act provides that s. 17(4) applies with necessary modifications for the purpose of determining who are related persons for the purposes of s. 47(1)(f).

35To support its position, the respondent points to common directors for both companies as well as addresses, phone numbers, HST numbers and company names across the two companies.

36The respondent submits that the reason there is a significant concern here because when a company has its CVOR cancelled, it means it should stop operating and should not simply be transferred to another company, which would defeat the purpose of the legislation.

37The respondent also points to Jagroop Singh being involved in 2017210 Ontario Inc. and GN Towing Inc. through evidence demonstrating that:

i. The corporation profile report of GN Towing Inc. generated December 6, 2022 indicates the active director as Jagroop Singh since June 1, 2022.

ii. The corporation profile report of 2017210 Ontario Inc. generated January 30, 2025 indicates the active director as Jagroop Singh since February 22, 2023, and Gary’s Towing as active business name since January 12, 2022.

iii. The corporation profile report of GN Towing Inc. generated May 26, 2025 indicates the active director as Jagroop Singh since June 1, 2022, and Gary’s Towing and GARYS as active business names since February 11, 2025.

38In terms of common addresses, 937 Allow Drive in Thunder Bay appears in:

i. The September 27, 2022 carrier safety record review of the Ministry of Transportation for 2017210 Ontario Inc.

ii. The October 18, 2021 revised notice of cancellation and seizure for 2017210 Ontario Inc.

iii. The corporation profile report of 2017210 Ontario Inc. generated January 30, 2025 (registered or head office address)

iv. The May 2, 2025 CVOR record for GN Towing Inc. o/a Gary’s Towing (mailing address)

v. The May 14, 2025 notice of cancellation and seizure for GN Towing Inc. o/a Gary’s Towing

39The address, 32 Sugarbush Court in Georgetown, appears in:

i. The May 14, 2025 notice of cancellation and seizure (address for Jagroop Singh)

ii. The May 14, 2025 notice of cancellation and seizure (Stealth Transport Express Inc.)

iii. The corporation profile report of GN Towing Inc. generated May 26, 2025 (active director as Jagroop Singh at this address)

40The address, 62 Kelways Drive in Brampton, appears in:

i. The corporation profile report of GN Towing Inc. generated December 6, 2022 indicates the active director as Jagroop Singh and this address for service

ii. The corporation profile report of 2017210 Ontario Inc. generated January 30, 2025 indicates the active director as Jagroop Singh (address for service)

41The respondent pointed to an internet search of Gary’s, which shows 807-473-6510 as its phone number which is the same number that appeared in the Ministry’s Carrier Safety Record Review of September 29, 2021 for 2017210 Ontario Inc.

42The respondent listed 30 towing vehicle plates registered to GN Towing Inc. that were previously registered to 2017210 Ontario Inc.

43Finally, the respondent points to evidence demonstrating that HST number 857628440 was registered to 2017210 Ontario Inc. and Gary’s Towing as of January 10, 2025. On February 5, 2025, another search showed GN Towing Inc. as having HST number 815915806.

44An invoice presented from Gary’s Towing dated January 10, 2025 used 857628440 as the HST number, the HST number for 2017210 Ontario Inc, a cancelled carrier at that time. On the other hand, a February 5, 2025 invoice from Gary’s Towing used 815915806 as the HST number.

45I accept the respondent’s evidence that Jagroop Singh was an active director in both GN Towing Inc. and 2017210 Ontario Inc. at the same time. Not that more evidence is necessary to establish the companies are related as per s. 17(4) of the Act, but the same addresses are used for GN Towing Inc. o/a Gary’s Towing and 2017210 Ontario Inc.

46The common use of the business name “Gary’s Towing”, the common use of HST number at certain times, and the common use of phone numbers and many of the same vehicle towing plate also demonstrate a very clear picture of the strong link between the companies.

47I find GN Towing Inc. is related to 2017210 Ontario Inc. as defined in s. 17(4) of the Act.

The appellant’s safety record

48Ms. Logan testified that the safety ratings of CVOR certificate holders are based on records that take into consideration collisions, convictions and inspection infractions, which are evaluated over a ‘sliding’ two-year window. The collisions, convictions and inspection infractions are assigned certain points which are then translated into percentages. An Overall Violation Rate (“OVR”) is then produced, combining the three criteria, by multiplying collision and conviction percentages by 40% each, and inspection infraction percentages by 20%.

49Ms. Logan presented the following statistical chart, outlining the levels of OVRs of Ontario CVOR holders as of February 2025 to demonstrate that over 97% of CVOR holders have a low violation rate of less than 35%, and that the appellant has in the .3 % worst violation rates:

Violation Rate Percentage (%)	Number of CVOR Holders	Percentage of Total
0 - <35%	60,384	97.75
35 - <50%	714	1.15
50 - <70%	333	0.53
70 - < 85%	83	0.13
85 - < 100%	55	0.08
≥ = 100%	59	0.09

50The appellant’s CVOR was commenced on December 20, 2016.

51A Commercial Vehicle Operator Record was produced, for the period of May 3, 2023 to May 2, 2025, which showed:

i. The appellant’s OVR at 82.3%.

ii. The appellant has a 47.06% overall out of service rate with a vehicle out of service rate of 45.45%, and a driver out of service rate of 5.88%.

iii. The percentage of set threshold of inspections is 127.5% with 56 vehicles inspected.

iv. The percentage of set threshold of convictions is 105.41% based on 30 events.

v. The percentage of set threshold of collisions is 36.6%, including 10 events.

vi. 34 commercial vehicles are registered and 30 drivers.

52The respondent submits that the appellant’s OVR has not been improving and is showing a negative trend. It pointed to many inspection reports demonstrating repeated issues such as insecure load, driver failing to provide pre-trip inspection, registration expired, failure to provide logs, and failure to have electronic logging device installed, etc. It is concerned that allowing the appellant to operate creates a risky environment for the public.

53The respondent also submits that an overall out of service rate for inspections of vehicle at 45.45% is very high and concerning as it means that almost half of the times the appellant’s trucks are inspected, there are violations severe enough to take it immediately off the road.

54In addition, the respondent is concerned about the collisions described in evidence involving the company such as losing control of the vehicle, failing to stop and hitting a car from behind and injuring another motorist.

55A show cause meeting was held May 26, 2025 where the Deputy Registrar was present, along with Ms. Logan and Mr. Singh among others. Ms. Logan’s notes from the meeting introduced in evidence indicate that Mr. Singh:

i. Stated he purchased Gary’s Towing and equipment but was unsure of the date.

ii. Did not know about inconsistencies in using the HST number of the former company under his business.

iii. Did not know why his company invoices state that Gary’s Towing is a division of GN Towing Inc.

iv. Confirmed he is managing the company.

v. Stated he did not know 2017210 Ontario Inc. had a canceled CVOR.

vi. Thinks he has 80 to 90 vehicles but maybe 20 to 22 operating. RIN shows 15 with valid registration.

56The notes indicate that the show cause meeting ended because Mr. Singh could not provide details or answers to questions being asked.

57I agree with the respondent’s position that according to the meeting notes, Mr. Singh did not know exactly when he purchased 2017210 Ontario Inc., that he did not know that CVOR was canceled, and that he did not know how big his fleet was. These are serious red flags as to who is in charge of the company, which has an impact on road safety. While the appellant was not present to confirm this was an accurate representation of what was said at the meeting, I find that I can accord it some weight as Ms. Logan presented it in testimony as her own meeting notes.

58I also find that there is no concrete plan to improve the safety of the appellant’s fleet in evidence, which does not convince me that the situation will improve for the appellant.

59I agree with the Registrar that the CVOR demonstrating an overall violation rate of 82.3 % is very concerning due to the number and severity of issues related to inspections, collisions and convictions. This rate is reached by less than 1 % of operators.

60Of particular concern is that there were different steps taken by the Registrar to assist the appellant in addressing past violations and ensuring improvement. Of particular concern is the percentage of vehicles needing to come off the road when inspected, which means it was putting the public at risk.

61Based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the safety record and the appellant’s affiliation with 2017210 Ontario Inc., which has a cancelled CVOR, provide a reason to believe that appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety.

Conclusion

62Based on the above, I find that the Registrar has established that there is reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the appellant, that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety.

What is the appropriate sanction?

63Neither party proposed any conditions. The respondent submitted it believes the appellant’s risk cannot be managed with conditions.

64I am not bound to accept the respondent’s proposal. I find, however, that it is appropriate in the circumstances. The appellant did not appear at the hearing to argue that other sanctions would sufficiently protect public safety or that the appellant can be trusted to comply with conditions placed on registration.

65There is no evidence that the appellant made any improvements to its ability to operate safely, or that it will in the future.

66As such, I confirm the Registrar’s decision.

ORDER

67Pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Act, the Tribunal confirms the respondent’s order to cancel the appellant’s CVOR certificate plate portion of a permit, including seizing the plate portion of any permits and number plates registered for all commercial motor vehicles and trailers registered in the name of the appellant.

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Geneviève Painchaud

Vice-Chair