Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17627/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:

Gagandeep Kaur Jassar

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Laura Hodgson

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

G. Jassar, self represented

For the Respondent:

E. Hou, Counsel

HEARD BY TELECONFERENCE: October 30, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Gagandeep Kaur Jassar (the “appellant”) appealed from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to suspend her Class A driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

2Following the hearing, I set aside the licence suspension and gave oral reasons for that decision. A written decision was issued on October 31, 2025. As indicated in the decision, pursuant to s. 17 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, the Tribunal would provide reasons in writing if requested by a party The appellant has now requested written reasons.

Preliminary Issue

3At the hearing, the Registrar requested that pages 6, 9, and 10 of the Registrar’s Submissions filed as Exhibit 1, be treated as confidential and not disclosed to the public because it related to an ongoing criminal investigation. The appellant took no issue with this request.

4The request was granted. I concluded that on balance, the confidentiality order sought is in accordance with section 2 of the Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, S.O. 2019, c. 7, Sch. 60, and protects the public interest without unduly restricting the open court principles affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25.

ISSUE

5The issue in this appeal is whether the Registrar has established sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the Act?

RESULT

6Having considered all the evidence and submissions I find that the Registrar has not established sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the Act. I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

The Registrar failed to establish a sufficient reason for the appellant’s licence suspension

7At the hearing, the Registrar clarified that it relied on its authority under s. 47(1)(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.

8As noted below, this suspension ended on October 14, 2025. At the hearing, neither party raised the issue of mootness.

9The Registrar takes the position that information provided by the Ontario Provincial Police Serious Fraud Office (the “OPP”) establishes that the integrity of the appellant’s commercial licence test was comprised and that this provides sufficient reason to suspend their licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

10The Registrar relied on letters and documents provided by the OPP to argue that that the appellant’s Class A licence was possibly obtained as a result of improprieties during their Class A testing.

11In a letter dated August 19, 2025, to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Oversight and Agency Governance, Detective Staff Sergeant Martin Connell of the OPP states that the OPP had initiated a criminal investigation regarding potential bribery related to the examination process for Class A commercial driver’s licences. While the investigation is ongoing, the OPP advised that it had “reasonable grounds to believe approximately 250 individuals may have fraudulently obtained their Class “A” commercial driver’s license.” Attached to the OPP letter was a document listing these individuals. This document was not provided as evidence to this Tribunal.

12The August 19, 2025, letter states that the OPP are sharing information out of concern for public safety. It indicates that because the investigation is active no additional details could be provided.

13With respect to specific reference to the appellant, the Registrar points to a second letter from the OPP, dated October 3, 2025, addressed to both the appellant and the Ministry of Transportation. That letter specifies that the OPP has reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant fraudulently obtained their Class A license through a scheme in which commercial driver examiners accepted payment from driving instructors in exchange for a favourable road test outcome for students. The letter specifies that an image of the appellant’s license and a confirmation of her booked road test were identified in a chat message between individuals believed to be implicated in the scheme - a driving instructor and a former driving examiner. The OPP confirmed that the appellant completed their class A licence road test on June 17, 2023. Her test was not conducted by the driving examiner identified in the chat message, but the OPP indicated they have grounds to believe the appellant’s examiner on June 17, 2023, is “complicit in the identified bribery scheme”. Those grounds for belief are not set out.

14The appellant’s licence was suspended for 90 days effective September 4, 2025. The Ministry did not specify in its correspondence to the appellant or in the Notice of Suspension which subsection of section 47 of the Act was the basis for her suspension. The letter stated, “Your failure to abide by the regulatory framework that protects road safety in Ontario has undermined the confidence of the Ministry of Transportation in your ability and your intention to drive safely.”

15Just over a month later, the Ministry ended the suspension of the appellant’s licence without explanation. In a letter dated October 10, 2025, the Ministry stipulated that the licence suspension would end on October 14, 2025, and the appellant’s Class A licence would instead be downgraded to a Class G. The appellant would be required to complete the requisite testing to obtain a Class A license. This appeal is from the suspension imposed on September 4th and not the licence downgrade on October 14, 2025.

16The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act and denies that the Registrar has established that the integrity of her license was compromised or that she is unlikely to drive a commercial vehicle safely on highways. She testified in a credible and forthright manner that she took the driving course as required and passed her driving test honestly and appropriately after completing all necessary steps. In her testimony, she noted that, on the date of her testing, her driving school required her to obtain a vehicle at her expense. Further, for a reason unknown to her, her initial test was cancelled on the day she was scheduled to take it. She was, however, through her own efforts, able to reschedule it and passed the test as required. The appellant testified that she has now been working as a commercial driver for two years. She has a clean record – without tickets, complaints, or any collisions.

17In her submission, she earned her licence fairly after full training and proper testing and has demonstrated the ability to operate a commercial vehicle safely. She emphasised that at every stage she complied with the procedures required to obtain her Class A licence. In her view, the Registrar has failed to provide sufficient evidence of impropriety in her licensing process.

18I agree and find that the Registrar has not provided sufficient evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s commercial licence was inappropriately obtained. Consequently, there is no “sufficient reason” for the licence suspension.

19The documents relied on by the Registrar indicate there is an ongoing investigation and there are reasonable grounds to believe “approximately 250 individuals may have fraudulently obtained their Class A commercial licence”. The list of names was not provided, and the Tribunal can not speculate that the appellant’s name is on that list. Information specific to the appellant is that her documentation was included in a text exchange between an instructor and an examiner who were believed to be involved in the fraudulent scheme. There is no evidence with respect to that instructor’s connection to the appellant. Further, the appellant was tested by another examiner, not the individual in the chat. There is no information about this examiner’s connection to the alleged scheme beyond the bald assertion that there are grounds to believe he is involved.

20The Registrar is not asserting the appellant had any knowledge of the alleged bribery scheme nor is her knowledge necessary to suspend her licence under subsection 47(g). The Registrar submits that, based on information provided by the OPP, the integrity of the appellant’s road test was compromised, and she may not have demonstrated the ability to operate a commercial vehicle safely.

21The evidence relied on by the Registrar does not rise to the level of establishing that it is more likely than not, that the integrity of the appellant’s Class A road test was compromised. The documents relied on by the Registrar point to allegations of a fraudulent scheme with little information to substantiate the allegations and only the possibility that the appellant’s licencing process may have been compromised. It is not the Tribunal’s role to speculate, and it can not draw specific inferences from broad allegations of wrongdoing. In the circumstances here, there is insufficient evidence to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that there was impropriety in the appellant’s commercial licensing process. The Registrar has not satisfied its burden to establish there was a sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

ORDER

22For the reasons set out above the Tribunal orders

i. The Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence is set aside pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act.

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