Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17685/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:

Sukhpreet Ghuman

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Emily Morton

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Sukhpreet Ghuman, self-represented

For the Respondent: Julie Vu, counsel

HEARD: By Teleconference November 4, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Sukhpreet Ghuman (the "appellant") appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the "Registrar") to suspend his 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 a 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, commencing September 4, 2025. At the hearing, the Registrar's representative confirmed the Registrar relied on subsection 47(1)(g) of the Act to suspend the appellant's licence.

3In a letter dated October 10, 2025, the Ministry of Transportation ("MTO") advised that the suspension of the appellant's driver's licence would end on October 14, 2025, and that his driver's licence would be downgraded to a Class G(Z) also on October 14, 2025.

4The appellant appeals from the suspension of his driver's licence, by way of Notice of Appeal dated September 12, 2025. The appellant did not file a Notice of Appeal from the decision to downgrade his Class A licence to a Class G licence and the issue of the downgrade was not addressed at the hearing.

5Following the hearing, I set aside the suspension and gave oral reasons for that decision with a written decision to follow.

6I also issued a confidentiality order with respect to certain documents presented at the hearing.

7The decision issued orally to the parties was of immediate effect.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Confidentiality Request

8The Registrar requested, pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the "Rules"), an order to limit public access to documents in the Registrar's Submissions, which was made Exhibit Two at the hearing. The documents are found at pages 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Exhibit Two and consist of two pieces of correspondence from the Ontario Provincial Police ("OPP") to the MTO. The Registrar submits these pages contain information that pertains to an ongoing criminal investigation and that release of the information could compromise the ongoing investigation.

9The appellant did not object to the Registrar's request for an order under Rule 13.1 limiting public access to pages 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Exhibit Two.

10I find that the Registrar has established that the public interest in public security warrants an order under Rule 13.1 to limit public assess to the identified pages of Exhibit Two. While I recognize the strong presumption in favour of the openness of tribunal proceedings, I find the identified pages describes information about persons of interest and investigative techniques in an ongoing criminal investigation. The information describes an investigation that is broad in scope and pertains to issues related to the integrity of tests used to licence drivers on Ontario's roads and highways. I find that it is in the public interest to limit public access to these records. I order pages 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Exhibit Two be excluded from the public record.

Mootness

11At the outset of the hearing, I asked the parties for their submissions on whether the appeal from the suspension had become moot, as the appellant received notification from the MTO on October 10, 2025 that the suspension would end effective October 14, 2025. Counsel for the Registrar submitted that the appellant may continue the appeal on the basis the fact of the suspension continues to be reflected on the records maintained with the Registrar, and thus would have a practical impact on the appellant even though his privilege to drive as a Class G(Z) licenced driver had been restored. The appellant indicated he did not wish to withdraw the appeal from the suspension.

12I find the appeal from the suspension is not moot. The fact of the suspension will remain on the appellant's driver's record. An order from the Tribunal pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act varying or setting aside the suspension could thus have a practical effect on the appellant.

ISSUES

13The issue in the hearing is:

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

RESULT

14Having considered all the evidence and submissions, and for the reasons that follow, I set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.

ANALYSIS

15I find the Registrar has not satisfied the burden to establish sufficient reasons to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.

16The Registrar has authority under subsections 47(1)(b) and (g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver's licence for any sufficient reason not referred to in subsections 47(1)(d), (e) or (f) of the Act. Subsection 47(1)(g) provides:

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).

17The Registrar submits the sufficient reason it relies upon is public safety. It submits that the evidence it relies on establishes that the reliability of driving test the appellant took to obtain his Class A licence is undermined as there is evidence before the Tribunal the driving examiner who conducted the appellant's Class A road test participated in a bribery scheme where he received money in exchange for providing the appellant with a favourable test result. The Registrar relies on subsection 31(a) of the Act which provides:

31 The purpose of this Part is to protect the public by ensuring that,

a) the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely;

18The Registrar relied on documentary evidence at the hearing. The Registrar filed a letter dated August 19 2025 from the Ontario Provincial Police Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") advising an official at the MTO it had "reasonable grounds" to believe that approximately 250 individuals had fraudulently obtained their Class A commercial driver's licence, and attached a list of the individuals. The only other context given in the letter for the statement there are "reasonable grounds" to believe the named individuals had fraudulently obtained their Class A licences is that the SFO had initiated an investigation following a complaint from the MTO about "potential bribery" related to the examination process for these licences.

19The Registrar submits that the examination process for driver's licences is a cornerstone of ensuring the mandate in section 31(a) is met. In the Registrar's submission, the sufficient reason to suspend the appellant's licence is linked to the statutory mandate to grant the privilege of driving only to those who have demonstrated they can drive safely. If there is evidence that the integrity and reliability of the results of a driver's licence examination is undermined by dishonesty in the process, it cannot be said that the privilege of driving had been granted to a person who demonstrated they are likely to drive safely. The Registrar submits that the identification of the appellant as a person the SFO has "reasonable grounds" to believe had obtained his licence dishonestly, apparently in a manner related to "potential bribery" in the examination process, provides the sufficient reason to suspend his licence.

20The Registrar relies on correspondence it sent the applicant on September 2, 2025 advising him his driver's licence had been suspended for 90 days as the MTO "has reason to believe that your Class A Ontario driver's licence was obtained as a result of your dishonesty during the Class A testing and/or training process." In the Registrar's submission, the letter permits me to draw an inference that the appellant was one of the approximately 250 individuals identified in the August 19, 2025 letter from the SFO.

21The Registrar relies on a memorandum from the SFO to another official at the MTO dated October 8, 2025. This evidence post-dates the decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence, but I have considered it as evidence that amplifies the factual basis for the the sufficient reason the Registrar maintains it had to suspend the appellant's licence. This memorandum provides further detail about the investigation into the alleged bribery scheme referred to in the August 19, 2025 letter. It states that investigators discovered a communication from a driving instructor to a former MTO driving examiner that transmitted the date and time of the appellant's road test for his class A licence, November 11, 2021. The memorandum states the MTO examiner passed the information about the date of the appellant's road test on to a second examiner, who was the examiner of record for the appellant's November 11, 2021 road test. The appellant passed his road test of November 11, 2021. The memorandum states that the SFO has "grounds" to believe that examiner of record was "complicit" in a bribery scheme in which money was exchanged for favourable test results. It does not set out what the basis for the "grounds" and does not provide any information as to what dishonesty or fraud occurred during the road test and in its result.

22The Registrar did not call a witness at the hearing to provide evidence on what formed the basis for the "grounds" or "reasonable grounds" for belief, set out in the documents from the SFO, that the appellant and others acted with dishonesty when the appellant successfully completed his road test for his class A licence on November 11, 2025. I recognize the standard of proof for establishing sufficient reason for the purpose is the higher one of balance of probabilities, which is higher than grounds or reasonable grounds. Yet the Registrar did not call evidence to set out the basis for what the belief the appellant had acted dishonestly was even on these lower standards.

23I find that ensuring the public's safety on highways is a "sufficient reason" for suspending a driver's licence for the purposes of section 47(1)(g) of the Act. One of the fundamental purposes of the Act is to ensure the public's safety on highways: Adam Giffen v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation), 2013 ONSC 7461 at para. 33. I also find that well founded concern with the integrity and reliability of examinations used to evaluate whether a person can "demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely" as required by section 31(a) of the Act can provide a "sufficient reason" to suspend a driver's licence.

24However, I note that on an appeal of the suspension to the Tribunal under section 50(1) of the Act, the Registrar bears the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that there was a sufficient reason to suspend the appellant's driver's licence. Evidence must be clear, convincing and cogent to satisfy the balance of probabilities test: F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53 at para. 46 ("McDougall"). I must "scrutinize the relevant evidence with care to determine whether it is more likely than not" that there was a sufficient reason to suspend the appellant's driver's licence: McDougall at para. 49.

25I must ground my decision in the evidence that is before me. When I consider the statements in the August 19, 2025 letter on which the Registrar relies, I find it does not permit me to draw an inference that there was sufficient reason to suspend the appellant's driver's licence based on the concern about the reliability or integrity of the process through which he obtained the licence. The information in this letter is limited to statements there are "reasonable grounds" to believe 250 individuals "may" have fraudulently obtained their licences. There is no elaboration whatsoever of the basis for these grounds of belief, beyond a statement that there is an ongoing investigation based on a complaint about "potential bribery" in the Class A testing process. Taking this letter, which was the basis for suspending the appellant's driver's licence on September 2, 2025, on its own, I find it provides no information as to what the "reasonable grounds" held by the SFO consisted of, and how it was that the appellant along with approximately 250 other people had fraudulently obtained their licence. It is a conclusory statement that I find does not meet the burden of establishing the sufficient reason identified by the Registrar to suspend the appellant's licence actually existed.

26Even when I consider the October 8, 2025 memorandum as further evidence as to what constitutes its basis to believe to believe the appellant obtained his licence fraudulently, I find the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities is not met. The memorandum describes a process through which a driving instructor contacted a driving examiner with the MTO and advised of the date and time of the appellant's Class A road test. This information, according to the memorandum, was then passed on to the examiner of record for the appellant's road test, which took place on the date and time passed along by the driving instructor to a different driving examiner. With respect to the road test itself, the memorandum states only that there are "grounds" to believe this examiner of record was "complicit" in the bribery scheme.

27The Registrar effectively asks me to draw the inference that because the SFO had "grounds" to believe the examiner of record was "complicit" in a bribery scheme that the reliability results of the appellant's test are undermined to extent that the requirement in section 31(a) of the Act is not met. I must draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, engage in conjecture and speculation. Even if I take as true the facts that there was a bribery scheme where money was exchanged for favourable test results for Class A road tests, I cannot safely draw the inference that the appellant's test results themselves were undermined by the scheme. There is no evidence beyond a bald statement of "reasonable grounds" that the appellant himself participated in the alleged scheme. The statement that there are "grounds" to believe his examiner of record was "complicit" in this scheme is not a sufficient factual basis for me to draw the inference that the road test result is unreliable or marred by dishonesty in how the test was conducted. There is no articulation of what the "grounds" for this belief are, and whether the grounds themselves are reasonable, which even then would not necessarily satisfy me on the requisite standard of proof on a balance of probabilities the Registrar had met its burden. I find the evidence relied on by the Registrar is not sufficient for me to draw the inference it was more likely than not that public safety was compromised by an unreliable road test given to the appellant on November 11, 2021.

28For these reasons, when I scrutinize the evidence relied on by the Registrar with care, I find that it is not sufficiently clear or cogent to meet the balance of probabilities test. It is comprised of a number of conclusory statements about the SFO having "grounds" or "reasonable grounds" to believe the appellant's driving examination was conducted in circumstances of dishonesty. The most pivotal aspect of the evidence – that the actual examiner of record conducted the test dishonestly – is comprised only of a conclusory statement the investigators have only "grounds" to believe this individual was involved in the bribery scheme. I find this conclusory statement, with no explanation for the "grounds" is not sufficient to permit me to find it is more likely than not this was the case. Therefore, I find the Registrar has not demonstrated to the requisite standard there was a sufficient reason to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.

ORDER

29Pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules I make an order excluding pages 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Exhibit Two filed in this proceeding from the publicly accessible record.

30Pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.

Released: December 18, 2025

__________________________

Emily Morton

Adjudicator