Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17833/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:

Malkiat Singh

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Rebecca Hines

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Malkiat Singh

For the Respondent:

Steven Grootenboer, Program Advisor

HEARD: November 14, 2025

OVERVIEW

1The 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 that there is reason to believe that the appellant's Class A licence was obtained because 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 in the appellant's ability and intention to drive safely.

3The 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. In this case, the Registrar submits that it has reason to believe that the appellant will not drive a Class A vehicle safely because he did not take a legitimate road test for a Class A licence. The Registrar submits that this is a sufficient reason to suspend their licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

4One 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.

5I 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.

6The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. The appellant argues that there is no evidence that he was involved in any fraud. Further, the consequence of the suspension on the appellant is severe because it has an impact on his employment, and he is the primary provider for his family. Further, he obtained his licence through the proper channels and has a clean driver's record. He respectfully requests that his Class A licence be reinstated.

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.

ISSUES

8I have been asked to decide the following issue:

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

RESULT

9Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has not satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reason to suspend the appellant's licence and I set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Records Excluded from Public Access

10At the commencement of the hearing the Registrar requested, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the "Rules"), an order to limit public access to pages 6, 9 and 10 of its submissions. The Registrar submits that these documents pertain to an Ontario Provincial Police ("OPP") investigation that is still in progress. Further, the release of the information could compromise the ongoing investigation and lead to a safety risk for the individuals identified in the file including the appellant. The appellant consents to the respondent's request.

11The 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"). As public access to adjudicative records is protected by the s. 2(b) Charter of Rights and Freedoms right to free expression, restrictions on access are exceptional. 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: a) matters involving public security may be disclosed; and b) intimate financial or personal matters or other matters contained in the record are of such 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.

12The 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.

13I find that the correspondence from the OPP at pages 6, and 9 to 10 of the Registrar's submissions contain information regarding an ongoing OPP investigation. For example, they include information about police investigation techniques. I find that allowing the public to access these records poses a risk to the integrity of an ongoing investigation. Further, I find these records contain personal information about the appellant and identifies the initials of alleged suspects who may be easily identified by members of the public. As a result, I find the order sought necessary to protect the safety of these individuals. Finally, I find the benefits of the confidentiality order outweighs its potential negative effect of releasing the records to the public for safety and security reasons. For these reasons, I grant the Registrar's request and seal these documents from public access.

ANALYSIS

I find that the Registrar has not satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reasons for suspending the appellant's licence.

14The Registrar heavily relies on two letters from the Serious Frauds Unit of the OPP. The first letter dated August 19, 2025, notified the Registrar that its investigation revealed that bribes were being paid for favourable results on Class A road tests and that 250 drivers had benefited from this scheme. A list of the 250 individuals was attached to its correspondence. The Registrar then sent the appellant a letter dated September 2, 2025, advising that it was suspending his licence because of his dishonesty during the Class A testing and/or training process. I find the OPP's letter dated August 19, 2025, insufficient to support that the appellant was dishonest in the Class A licencing process at the time the Registrar suspended his licence because there were no allegations about the appellant's dishonesty in the OPP's letter. Further, while the letter dated August 19, 2025 was before me, the list attaching the names of the drivers was not.

15The second letter sent by the OPP to the Registrar dated October 21, 2025, indicated that its investigation revealed that bribes were being paid for favourable results on Class A road tests and that the appellant was identified as being one of those drivers. It advised that following an extensive investigation the OPP has reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant fraudulently obtained his Class A licence through a scheme in which commercial driver examiners accepted payment in exchange for a favourable road test outcome. The police seized and examined cellular devices which revealed chat messages dated August 30, 2022 between a driving instructor and commercial driving examiner (both allegedly complicit in the scheme) which included the transmission of a copy of the appellant's driver's licence. That driving examiner then sent the appellant's licence to another examiner (who is also allegedly part of the scheme) and this individual conducted the Class A road test, and the appellant successfully passed.

16I find the correspondence from the OPP was unsupported by any persuasive evidence. For example, I was not provided with copies of the chat messages between the driving instructor and examiner and was not provided with any information about how the second examiner became involved. As a result, I do not have any context to support that the appellant was involved in or was aware of these communications. Nor was I provided with any proof that there was any money exchanged for a positive test result. Further, the appellant was not questioned by police about his involvement. Ultimately, I find that there is no evidence that the appellant was dishonest in the licencing process.

17The Registrar submits that whether the appellant was aware of the bribery scheme is irrelevant. Further, what I must decide is whether he completed a legitimate Class A road test. I reject this argument because in the Ministry of Transportation's letter to the appellant suspending his licence it stated that it was suspending his Class A licence because of his dishonesty in the process. I find the current position of the Registrar inconsistent when compared to the reason it suspended the appellant's driver's licence. While the OPP's investigation may support that there may be reason to believe that there was dishonesty on behalf of the driving instructor and driving examiner there is insufficient evidence to support that the appellant was dishonest in the process.

18Of significance, the Registrar did not provide the appellant with any information about which ground it was suspending his licence and first notified the appellant that it was suspending his licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) on the day of the hearing. I find this to be procedurally unfair as it should have provided this notice in its suspension letter to allow the appellant the ability to respond.

19The Registrar relies on s. 31 of the Act which highlights the policy objective of the Act in regards to licencing to protect the public by insuring that: (a) the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and is retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely; and b) full driving privileges are granted to novice and probationary drivers only after the acquire experience and develop or improve safe driving skills in controlled conditions. The Registrar submits that if the road test was not properly satisfied then this policy objective has not been met which constitutes a sufficient reason to suspend the appellant's licence. The Registrar argues that Class A vehicles can weigh over 60,000 kilograms or more and that there are increased safety risks with operating these vehicles to both the driver and the public.

20The appellant submits that he achieved his Class A licence through the proper channels and has obtained the other necessary certificates for safe driving. For example, he completed the MELT truck training program and has an air brake certificate. Further, his driver's abstract is clear from any tickets and safety issues, and he has not been accused of fraud. I find that there is insufficient evidence before me to support that the appellant did not take a legitimate Class A road test.

21Although I can appreciate that the OPP's investigation raised serious concerns about a bribery scheme and public safety on roadways, I find the Registrar has not satisfied its burden on a balance of probabilities that there was sufficient reason to suspend the appellant's licence because of his dishonesty pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

ORDER

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

Released: November 28, 2025

__________________________

Rebecca Hines

Adjudicator