Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17810/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 and from a decision of the Minister of Transportation to change the class of a driver’s licence under s. 32(5)(b) of the Act.

Between:

Maninder Singh

Appellant

and

Minister of Transportation and Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondents

REASONS FOR DECISION

VICE-CHAIR:

Jan Dymond

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Maninder Singh, Appellant Gurinder Multani, Paralegal

For the Respondent:

Patrick Moore, Counsel

HEARD: By Teleconference November 25, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Maninder 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”) and from a decision of the Minister of Transportation (the “MOT”) to change the class of the appellant’s driver’s licence under s. 32(5)(b) of the Act.

2The appellant attended and was represented by Gurinder Pal Multani, paralegal. Patrick Moore, counsel, attended on behalf of the Registrar. The representative of the Registrar confirmed that they were also acting in the capacity of representative of the MOT for the purposes of this hearing.

3The appellant’s original appeal only purported to challenge the suspension of his licence. At the appellant’s request, and on consent of the Registrar and MOT (together “respondents”), I added the decision of the MOT to downgrade their Class A(Z) driver’s licence to Class G(Z) as an issue to this appeal. The Registrar confirmed that the suspension was issued pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the Act and the MOT confirmed that the downgrade was issued pursuant to s.32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

4I also issued a confidentiality order with respect to certain documents presented at the hearing.

5At the conclusion of the hearing, I reserved on my decision.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Amendment to the Notice of Appeal

6On September 2, 2025, the Registrar notified the appellant that their driver’s licence was suspended for a period of 90 days. On October 1, 2025, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) with the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), challenging the suspension of their driver’s licence. The appellant then received a letter from the MOT, dated October 10, 2025, stating that the suspension period was changed to end on October 14, 2025 and that, effective October 14, 2025, the appellant’s licence would be downgraded from a Class A(Z) to a Class G(Z). The appellant filed a Notice of Motion on November 9, 2025 to amend the NOA to also appeal the downgrade of the licence. The appellant submits that the allegations and facts and evidence that pertain to the suspension also pertain to the downgrade and that consideration of both decisions at this proceeding is fair to the appellant and efficient for both parties.

7The MOT consents to adding the downgrade as an issue in dispute. The MOT confirms that the downgrade was issued pursuant to s. 32.5(b)(i) of the Act and is, therefore, appealable under s. 50(1) of the Act and submits that it is only fair that the appellant be able to appeal all decisions related to the scenario in one proceeding.

8With the consent of both parties, the appellant’s motion is granted and the downgrade of the appellant’s driver’s licence from Class A(Z) to Class G(Z) is added as an issue in dispute.

Confidentiality Request

9The 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, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 7, Sch. 60 (“TARA”). As public access to adjudicative records is protected by the s. 2(b) of the 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 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.

10The Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, (“Sherman”) 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.

11At the commencement of the hearing, the respondents requested an order to limit public access to pages 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of its submissions pursuant to Rule 13 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the “Rules”). The respondents submitted that the cited pages contain information that pertains to an ongoing police investigation. They also submitted that premature release of the information on those pages would not be in the public interest because it could compromise an ongoing investigation, and that some of the information in these documents could have an adverse impact on individuals who are mentioned in those pages

12The appellant did not object to the respondent’s request for a confidentiality order to remove pages 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 from the public record.

13I am satisfied that the respondent has established that its request meets the requirements under Sherman because: the potential for release of pages 6, 9, 10, 11 and 12 to impede an ongoing police investigation into serious allegations poses a risk to an important public interest because a compromised investigation could result in unqualified individuals being licensed to drive commercial vehicles on the highways. I also find that here is no reasonable alternative measure available to mitigate the risk, and the benefits of the order in protecting an ongoing investigation from being compromised before it has reached its conclusion outweigh any negative effect of preventing public access to the documents.

14I order that the following pages: 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12, of the respondents’ submissions be sealed and excluded from the public record.

Motion to Exclude Evidence

15The appellant moved to exclude two letters from the Ontario Provincial Police Serious Fraud Office (“OPP SFO”), dated August 19, 2025, and October 21, 2025, contained in the respondents’ submissions on the grounds that they are unsworn, hearsay, and unreliable. The appellant submits that hearsay evidence is admissible only if reliable and cannot form the basis of an adverse finding. He submits that, if admitted, the letters should carry no probative value and must be given little weight.

16The respondents submit that the Tribunal’s rules and practice provide that evidence submitted in advance of the hearing is generally allowed to be entered into evidence. They further submit that materials can be filed without a witness and that the Tribunal can determine whether they have probative value.

17I considered the positions of both parties and find for the respondents. The onus is on the respondents in the matters before me. The rules of evidence at a tribunal are more flexible than in a court. Section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA”) authorizes a tribunal to admit any document that it finds is relevant, whether or not it is given or proven under oath or admissible in a court, as long as it is not inadmissible in accordance with subsection 15(2) of the SPPA. I find that excluding the OPP SFO letters would result in significant prejudice to the respondents that could not be overcome by alternative remedies. Any of the appellant’s concerns regarding the reliability of the letters could be raised again as arguments regarding the weight I should attribute to the documents.

18The appellant’s motion to exclude the OPP SFO letters dated August 19, 2025 and October 21, 2025 is denied.

ISSUES

19The issues to be determined are:

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

ii. Has the Minister established sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act?

RESULT

20Having 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 driver’s licence, and the MOT has not satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant’s driver’s licence. I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence and the decision of the MOT to downgrade the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Has the Registrar established that it had sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to [s. 47(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h8/latest/rso-1990-c-h8.html#sec47subsec1_smooth)(g) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h8/latest/rso-1990-c-h8.html)?

21Having 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 driver’s licence.

22The 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).”

23The Registrar submits that the “sufficient reason” being relied upon is public safety. The Registrar submits that the appellant obtained his Class A driver’s licence as a result his dishonesty in the testing process and, therefore, has undermined the confidence of the Registrar in his ability and intention to drive safely.

24One 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.

25I 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. s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

26In support of its position, the Registrar submitted a letter from the OPP SFO to the MOT dated August 19, 2025 which advised the MOT of “potential bribery related to the examination process for Class “A” commercial driver’s licences.” The letter itself did not name the appellant as one of the individuals suspected of having obtained their Class A licence fraudulently. However, the letter references an attachment purporting to contain a list of 250 named individuals for whom the OPP SFO alleged there were reasonable grounds to believe may have fraudulently obtained their Class A commercial driver’s licence. The Registrar submits that the appellant is named on that list; however, the list of names was not submitted as evidence.

27The Registrar also relies on the OPP SFO letter of October 21, 2025 which specifically references the appellant. The Registrar submits that evidence referenced contained in the October 21st letter, namely a reported series of chat messages, illegible screen shots that appear to be headed Drive Test, screen shots confirming the appellant’s road test appointment and photocopies of the appellant’s driver’s licence are sufficient reason to conclude that the appellant’s commercial driver’s licence test was obtained through fraud and is not reliable.

28The appellant submits that these allegations are unproven and speculative at best. He submits that, even if the examiner and others were involved in a bribery scheme, there is no evidence that the appellant participated in a bribery scheme or evidence that he did not legitimately pass his driver’s licence. The appellant testifies that he did not participate in or have knowledge of any bribery scheme and, further, that he legitimately passed his commercial driver’s licence road test.

29I accept that the OPP SFO came to the conclusion that they have reasonable grounds to believe that appellant fraudulently obtained his Class A driver’s licence; however, reason to believe does not rise to the level of balance of probabilities which is the test to be applied to a suspension under s. 47(1)(g) (for comparison

30Further, I find the evidence connecting the appellant to the alleged bribery scheme to be tenuous at best. The August 19, 2025, letter on which the Registrar relies, does not name the appellant. It references an attached list of names that was not put into evidence before me. The Registrar did not produce any witness from the office of the Registrar or the OPP SFO who could confirm and/or expand upon the allegation that the appellant’s name appears on a list attached to the August 19, 2025 letter. As a result, and on the evidence before me, I cannot make the factual finding that the appellant’s name appears on the list or whether an individual with that name is indeed the appellant. The appellant submits that the Registrar has not established whether the appellant was named in the list and that the letter has no probative value and should be given little weight. I agree that the August 19, 2025 should be assigned little weight.

31The October 21, 2025 letter is dated more than two months following the September 2, 2025 suspension letter and, therefore, cannot have been a basis for the suspension. Further, there is nothing in the letter to suggest that the evidence related directly to the appellant contained therein was communicated to the respondents previously. I therefore assign it no weight with respect to the suspension of the appellant’s licence under 47(1)(g) of the Act.

32I am not satisfied that the evidence presented establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s driver’s licence was obtained as a result of fraud or bribery resulting in a risk to public safety. I, therefore, find that the Registrar has not established there was a sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the Act and I order the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s licence be set aside.

Has the MOT established that it had sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant’s licence pursuant to [s. 32(5)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h8/latest/rso-1990-c-h8.html#sec32subsec5_smooth)(b)(i) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h8/latest/rso-1990-c-h8.html)?

33I find that the MOT has not established, on a balance probabilities, that there was sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant’s licence under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

34Under subclause 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act, the MOT may:

“impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any conditions or endorsements or change the class or classes of driver’s licence held by the person, in accordance with the results of the examinations and other prescribed requirements.”

35The MOT submitted that it had downgraded the appellant’s driver’s licence from Class A(Z) to Class G(Z) under s. 32(5)(b)(i) because information received from the OPP SFO raised concerns over the legitimacy of the appellant’s road test and established sufficient reason to believe that the appellant did not fulfill the prescribed requirement of completing a legitimate road test.

36As evidence in support of its position, the MOT submits a letter from the OPP SFO dated October 21, 2025, alleging that the OPP SFO has reasonable grounds to believe 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 a favourable road test outcome. The letter further states that the OPP SFO investigators seized and examined the cellular devices of individuals implicated in the scheme and recovered multiple chat conversations from those devises. According to the OPP SFO letter, the conversations included chat messages, dated July 12, 2023, between a known driving instructor of a trucking school with a former driving examiner and forwarded an image of the appellant’s driver’s licence as well as details of the appellant’s drive test scheduled for October 3, 2023, a test that the appellant did not pass. The OPP SFO letter alleges that the chat message was then shared with an unknown person on November 1, 2023 and reshared, allegedly with the appellant’s test results, on November 18, 2023.

37The MOT submits that the letter of October 21, 2025 establishes that, whether or not the appellant was directly involved in the bribery scheme, his Class A driver’s licence was obtained fraudulently through the bribery scheme. The MOT submits that the October 10th letter provides sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant’s drivers licence and that the downgrade should be confirmed.

38The appellant testifies that he failed his road test on three occasions, October 3, 2023, November 2, 2023, and November 20, 2023.

39I find that the chronology shared by the OPP SFO has little probative value because the chat messages of 2023 do not appear to relate to the road test that the appellant passed in but rather were exchanged in advance of road tests that the appellant failed.

40The appellant ultimately passed his road test on July 9, 2024, almost eight months after the most recent chat messages reported by the OPP SFO. There is no evidence before me of any correspondence related to the July 9, 2024 road test. The only link between the appellant’s successful completion of the road test and the alleged bribery scheme is a statement by the OPP SFO that that the driving instructor who conducted the appellant’s July 9, 2024 road test is a suspect in the ongoing investigation.

41Furthermore, in terms of the October 21, 2025 letter being a basis for the downgrade, I find that the timelines do not track. The letter notifying the appellant of the suspension of his driver’s licence is dated September 2, 2025 and the letter advising of the downgrade is dated October 10, 2025, yet the letter received from the OPP SFO specifically naming the appellant is dated October 21, 2025 - some six weeks after the order to suspend and eleven days after the notice of downgrade. Considering these timelines, I do not accept the October 21, 2025 letter, as a basis for the suspension or the downgrade.

42The MOT has not provided records of any additional emails or phone calls related to the downgrade of the appellant’s driver’s licence that would explain the October 10, 2025 decision to downgrade the appellant’s licence.

43For the reasons stated above, I am not satisfied that the evidence presented with respect to the downgrade of the appellant’s driver’s licence establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that the MOT has sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act. As a result, and pursuant to 50(2) of the Act, I set aside the change of class of the appellant’s driver’s licence.

Conclusion 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.

44I find that the MOT has not satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant’s driver’s licence and I set aside the decision to change the class of the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ORDERS

45For the reasons set out above, I order as follows:

i. Pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence is set aside.

ii. Pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, the MOT’s decision to downgrade the appellant’s Class A(Z) driver’s licence to Class G(Z) is set aside.

iii. Pages 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the respondents’ submissions shall be treated as confidential, sealed, and not disclosed to the public.