Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17751/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:

Lakhwinder Singh

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondents

REASONS FOR DECISION

VICE-CHAIR:

Genevieve Painchaud

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Lakhwinder Singh, Appellant Gurinder Multani, Paralegal

For the Respondent:

Sidra Saeed, Articling Student

HEARD: By Teleconference December 1, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Lakwinder Singh (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”).

2By way of letter to the Appellant dated September 2, 2025, the Registrar suspended the Appellant’s driver’s licence, pursuant to subsection 47(1) of the Act for a period of 90 days from September 4, 2025.

3By letter to the appellant dated October 10, 2025, the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) advised that the suspension of his driver’s licence would end on October 14, 2025 and that his driver’s licence would be downgraded to a Class G(Z) that same day.

4On September 24, 2025, the appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Tribunal regarding the suspension of his Class A driver’s licence.

5The Tribunal scheduled a hearing for November 7, 2025.

6On November 7, 2025, the Tribunal granted the appellant’s adjournment request.

7The Tribunal re-scheduled the hearing to today.

8On November 9, 2025, the appellant filed a notice of motion to add an issue to the appeal. The Tribunal advised him it would be heard at the scheduled hearing.

9At the conclusion of the hearing, I provided the parties with my oral decision and reasons.

10The appellant requested a written decision with reasons.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Motion to Amend the Notice of Appeal

11On November 9, 2025, the appellant filed a Notice of Motion to add the issue of the downgrade of the appellant’s licence from a Class A(Z) to a Class G(Z) to this appeal, and the Tribunal advised it would be heard at the scheduled hearing.

12The Registrar confirmed it was relying on s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act for the downgrade.

13The parties agree that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal under s. 32(5)(b)(ii).

14Section 32(5)(b)(ii) provides that:

“(ii) where the person fails to submit or to successfully complete the examinations or fails to meet the other requirements, impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any endorsements, suspend or cancel the driver’s licence held by the person or change the class or classes of driver’s licence held by the person;”

15The appellant requests that the Tribunal change the ground for the downgrade to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act so that the Tribunal can have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that this section is more appropriate if there was no exam. It argues the Tribunal has the authority to do so under ss. 50(1) and 50(2) which provides that:

50(1): Every person aggrieved by a decision of the Minister made under subsection 32(5) for which there is a right of appeal, pursuant to a regulation made under clause 32(14)(n) or an order of the Registrar under clause 47(1)(b), may appeal the decision or order to the Tribunal.

50(2): The Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Minister or Registrar under subsection (1) or (1.0.1).

16The Registrar argues that the Tribunal does not have the authority to amend the position of the Registrar, and that the appellant failed to fulfill the requirements of a licence and the examination.

17Ontario Regulation 340/94 (“Regulation”) prescribes the kinds of decisions which may be appealed to the Tribunal and s. 25.1 states that a decision made by the Minister under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act is a decision a person may appeal under s. 50 of the Act. There is no similar provision in the Regulation which specifically says that a decision made by the Minister pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) may be appealed under s. 50 of the Act.

18I agree that a decision made pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) is not one which is appealable under s. 50(1) of the Act and is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine.

19I also do not find I have the authority to change the ground the Registrar is relying on for the suspension as it is different than varying a decision or order allowed under s. 50(2) of the Act.

20The motion is dismissed.

Confidentiality Order

21The Registrar requests, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Rules, an order to limit public access to pages 6, 9 and 10 of its document brief. The Registrar submits that those pages contain confidential information of an Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) investigation that is still in process and some of the information in that letter could adversely impact people mentioned.

22The appellant did not have any objection to a confidentiality order to those pages.

23The 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.

24The 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.

25I find that the correspondence from the OPP at pages 6, 9 and 10 of the Registrar’s document brief contain information regarding an ongoing OPP investigation including many people’s names and details that could impact the investigation, and the people involved 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.

26As 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.

ISSUE

27The issue in this hearing is:

i. Has the Registrar established sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the Act?

Analysis

28I find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reasons to suspend the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence.

29In 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.

30On 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.

31The 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.

32The 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).”

33The Registrar submits that the “sufficient reason” being relied upon is public safety.

34One 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.

35In 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 approximately 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.

36The Registrar further submitted a letter from the OPP Serious Fraud Office dated October 8, 2025, alleging that the OPP had reasonable grounds to believe based on evidence collected, including chat 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.

37The Registrar submits 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 fraudulent scheme between the driving school and the driving examiner and benefited from a successful outcome on the driving test. Since the appellant received his Class A licence as result of dishonesty, the Registrar argues that the appellant was not properly tested raising concern for public safety as he was not properly tested.

38The appellant argues that the documents from the OPP is not reliable, especially since the list of names of people involved has not been included and that the Registrar cannot rely on evidence that has not gone through court.

39In addition, the appellant submits that there is no “sufficient reason” established as per s. 47(1)(g) as no chat messages are in evidence, no evidence of money being involved, no OPP officer present and no bank records and therefore no evidence tying the appellant to the scheme.

40I 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.

41I 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, including his name and licence in the Registrar’s evidence regarding the scheme. 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.

42The 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 is not reliable.

43The appellant argues that the Tribunal must wait for the court to render a decision. I find this is on a matter that may not even yet be in front of the court, and possibly have a different standard of proof. 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.

44I therefore find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reasons to suspend the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence.

45The Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence is confirmed.

CONCLUSION

46I 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.

ORDER

47The Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence is confirmed.

48Pages 6, 9, and 10 of the Registrar’s document brief filed at the hearing as Exhibit 1 shall be treated as confidential and not disclosed to the public.

49The motion to amend the notice of appeal is denied.