Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17833/HTA

Appeal under section 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act"), from a decision of the Minister of Transportation to downgrade a driver's licence under subsection s. 32(5)(b) of the Act.

Between:

Malkiat Singh

Appellant

and

Minister of Transportation

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Dagmara Szczudlo

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Malkiat Singh, Appellant (Did not attend) Ramambir Kaur, Appellant's sister/Representative

For the Respondent: David Milner, Counsel

Heard by Teleconference: December 8, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Malkiat Singh (the "appellant") appeals from the decision of the Minister of Transportation (the "Minister" or "respondent") to downgrade a driver's licence under subsection s. 32(5)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act").

2The appellant was represented by Ramambir Kaur, who described herself as the appellant's sister.

3In a letter dated September 2, 2025, the Ministry of Transportation notified the appellant that it has reason to believe that the appellant's Class A Ontario driver's licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during the Class A testing and/or training processes. As a consequence, the appellant's driver's licence was suspended pursuant to subsection 47(1) of the Act, for a period of 90 days from September 4, 2025.

4The 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.

5In a letter dated October 10, 2025, the Ministry of Transportation notified the appellant that the suspension period has changed. Effective October 14, 2025, the original suspension came to an end and the appellant's Ontario Class A(Z) driver's licence was downgraded to a Class G(Z). The letter advised that in order to upgrade to a Class A licence, the appellant must successfully complete the following tests at a Drive Test Centre: vision test, class A knowledge test, class A practical and road test, and complete both the written and practical Z air brake endorsement tests before December 8, 2025 (if applicable).

6The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal ("NOA") with the Licence Appeal Tribunal on October 5, 2025, and a hearing was scheduled for November 14, 2025. Following the hearing, the Tribunal set aside the suspension, gave oral reasons, and released a decision on November 28, 2025.

7A hearing was scheduled for November 14, 2025 and during the hearing, the appellant requested that the issue of the downgrade to his licence be added to the appeal and a teleconference hearing be scheduled on a future date. The request was on consent and was granted via Motion Order released November 20, 2025. The Tribunal scheduled a subsequent hearing for December 8, 2025 to determine whether the Minister established a sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant's licence pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

ISSUE

8The issue in dispute is:

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

RESULT

9After considering the submissions and evidence from both parties, I find as follows:

i. The Minister has not established that there was a sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant's driver's licence from class A(Z) to G(Z).

ii. The downgrade of the appellant's driver's licence is set aside.

iii. Pages 7, 10, and 11 of the respondent's document brief shall be treated as confidential and not disclosed to the public.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

Confidentiality Order

10At the outset of the hearing, I granted the respondent's motion and issued a confidentiality order in relation to several pages of the respondent's document brief.

11The respondent brought an oral motion to limit public access to pages 7, 10, and 11 of the respondent's document brief (submitted on November 20, 2025) to protect confidentiality of sensitive information related to an ongoing Ontario Provincial Police ("OPP") investigation. The request was made as per Rule 13.1 of the Licence Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the "Rules").

12The appellant's representative did not object to the request.

13The 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"). 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 it 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. Rule 13 of the Rules echoes these principles.

14Similarly, the Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25 ("Sherman"), held that the party seeking a confidentiality order of any sort has the burden of proving that one should be made. The Court also set out the following requirements that must be met before placing limits on the open court principle:

a) court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest;

b) the order sought is necessary to prevent this serious risk to the identified interest because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent this risk; and

c) as a matter of proportionality, the benefits of the order outweigh its negative effect.

15A review of pages 7, 10, and 11 reveals that the pages contain names and details of the OPP investigation so far and I find that openness in this instance poses a serious risk to an ongoing police investigation and the ability of the respondent to protect the public interest. I agree that this information is sufficiently sensitive that avoiding its disclosure outweighs the desirability of adhering to the open courts principle.

16As per Rule 13.1(c), I grant a confidentiality order and limit public assess to pages 7, 10, and 11 of the respondent's document brief to protect confidentiality of sensitive information.

ANALYSIS

Driver's licence downgrade

17For the reasons that follow, the Minister has not established that there was a sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant's driver's licence from class A(Z) to G(Z).

18The Minister has the authority under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act to require a person who holds a driver's licence to submit to the examinations that are authorized by the regulations at the times and places required by the Minister and to meet other prescribed requirements. The Minister may also 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.

19Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Minister.

20For the Tribunal to confirm the order of the Minister in relation to s. 32(5)(b)(i), the respondent must provide objective, compelling and credible information which affords a reason to downgrade the appellant's driver's licence.

21The respondent relies on two letters from the OPP which advised the Minister of Transportation that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a number of individuals fraudulently obtained their Class A license. In a letter dated October 21, 2025, the OPP provides evidence specific to the appellant consisting of an overview of electronic communications which allegedly occurred between a known driving instructor and two former DE4 examiners on 2022/08/30. Two exhibits were enclosed to this letter showing a calendar screenshot dated 25/05/23 and a photo of the appellant's licence dated 30/08/22. The OPP have grounds to believe that the examiner during the appellant's road test was complicit in the identified bribery scheme.

22The respondent further submits that it is not taking the position that the appellant knew about the bribery but argues that the road test performed by the appellant was corrupted and illegitimate because his name appeared on the list of individuals that should be given a favourable result as part of the fraudulent scheme.

23Finally, the respondent submits that although the appellant's licence was downgraded, he has a class G(Z) licence in Ontario and is eligible to drive vehicles up to 11,000 kg or less. If the appellant wishes to re-acquire a class A licence, he must successfully complete the following tests at a Drive Test Centre: vision test, class A knowledge test, class A practical and road test, and complete both the written and practical Z air brake endorsement tests before December 8, 2025 (if applicable).

24The appellant's representative submits that the appellant was not involved in the bribery scheme, has significant long-haul trucking experience prior to moving to Canada, and maintained a clean driving record for the past three years once he obtained his Class A licence on August 30, 2022.

25The appellant's representative argued that there is no proof that the appellant was complicit in the fraudulent scheme and the phone number provided in the letter by the OPP is unknown to the appellant as his truck driver training was completed with Quick Action Transport Inc. driving school. The appellant relies on transcripts from Quick Action Transport Inc. issued August 30, 2022, 3 Years Driver Record Search issued by the Ministry of Transportation (search date September 3, 2025), and an Application for Ontario Driver's Licence dated September 22, 2025. The appellant's representative further submits that her brother works hard to support his young family and only provided payment for training to Quick Action Transport Inc. driving school.

26I find the OPP's letter is insufficient to establish that the appellant's road test on August 30, 2022 was invalid because one of the exhibits enclosed in this letter does not correspond to the date when the appellant obtained his class A driver's licence. Exhibit 1 provided by the OPP includes a screen shot of a calendar which includes names and times for several types of tests, including PTI, Backing, and Road. Although the appellant's name appears on this calendar, the date stamp associated with this exhibit is 25/05/23 9:48:58.000 PM. The date format for this entry is undefined, however, based on the numbers I conclude that this exchange occurred either on May 23, 2025 or May 25, 2023, neither of which corresponds the appellant's Class A road test date of August 30, 2022. It is unlikely that communication about a fraudulent scheme involving a driving test would occur months after the actual road test. The reason why the appellant's driver's licence photo dated 30/08/22 is found on the electronic device of a suspect is unclear to me, but on its own, this information is of limited value in my analysis.

27The OPP is investigating fraud/bribery allegations against a driving instructor and a test examiner, and the appellant is implicated in the investigation by the presence of his name and driver's licence photo in electronic communications between several suspects. This alone does not persuade me that the appellant lacks driving skill or that his road test was corrupted and illegitimate. The OPP letters do not establish that the appellant's privilege of holding a class A licence poses a risk to public safety. In this regard, I find his driving record since he obtained the class A licence to be more useful.

28I am persuaded by the appellant's 3 Years Driver Record Search issued by the Ministry of Transportation (search date September 3, 2025), and conclude that the appellant maintained a clean driving record in the three years since he obtained his class A licence. This track record demonstrates that his ability to operate a commercial truck poses a minimal risk to public safety.

29For the reasons stated above, the ongoing OPP investigation against a driving instructor and a test examiner is not a sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant's class A driver's licence and impact his livelihood.

Conclusion

30I find that:

i. The Minister has not established that there was a sufficient reason to downgrade the appellant's driver's licence from class A(Z) to G(Z).

ORDER

31The downgrade of the appellant's driver's licence is set aside.