Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16715/MED

In the matter of an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the HTA

Between:

Tron Bell

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Eric Weinberg, M.D., Adjudicator Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Tron Bell, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Melissa Litrenta, Representative

HEARD: March 13, 2025

OVERVIEW

1In February 2025, the appellant Tron Bell filed an undated Notice of Appeal – Suspension or Cancellation of a Driver’s Licence for Medical Reasons under s. 47(1)(b) and s. 50 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (“HTA”) seeking to appeal a Notice of Suspension of Driver’s Licence (“Notice”) from the Ministry of Transportation’s Driver Improvement Office (the “Registrar”) dated November 15, 2024, stating that the appellant’s driver’s licence is suspended under s. 32(5) of the HTA effective November 25, 2024 for failure to submit a satisfactory medical report. The Notice states that the appellant’s driver’s licence will be reinstated when he files a satisfactory medical report.

2The hearing of this appeal began March 13, 2025.

3The two following preliminary issues were addressed.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE – APPELLANT’S REQUEST TO RECORD THE HEARING

4On March 3, 2025, the appellant sent in a written request to audio record the hearing. The appellant did not respond to the Tribunal’s request to submit this request in a different format and with more information.

5At the hearing, the appellant was asked to confirm whether he was still requesting permission to audio record the hearing and he confirmed that he was. The appellant submitted that he should be allowed to record the hearing for purposes of his personal notes even though he confirmed that he was able to take notes in writing on his computer and on paper.

6The respondent did not oppose the appellant’s request to record the hearing.

7After deliberating, the Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to audio record the hearing on condition that he had been advised that his recording would not become part of the Tribunal’s record of the hearing, that he provide a copy to the respondent, and upon request, to the Tribunal, all in accordance with Rule 13.3 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”). The Tribunal stated that permission to record was granted for the purpose of the appellant using the recording for his personal notes and on condition that the appellant not disseminate, broadcast, or publish the recording anywhere including on the internet and any social media platform.

8Following this ruling, the appellant said he did not wish to audio record the hearing and confirmed to the panel that he had turned his recording off.

9The panel proceeded to hear the next preliminary issue – the respondent’s motion.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE – RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

10By Notice of Motion dated March 4, 2025, the respondent brought a motion seeking to have this appeal dismissed.

11On March 5, 2025 the Tribunal directed that the motion be heard at the commencement of the hearing and the parties were so advised.

12As a result, the respondent’s motion was heard at the commencement of the hearing.

13To summarize the respondent’s submissions, the appeal should be dismissed without a hearing because the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal for the following reasons:

a. There is currently no medical suspension under s. 47(1) of the HTA for this appellant;

b. The appellant’s driver’s licence suspension was issued under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the HTA for failure to submit a satisfactory medical report, not suspended under s. 32(5)(b)(i) for which there is a right of appeal under s. 50(a) of the HTA. Subsection 15(1) of Ontario Regulation 340/94 (the “Regulation”) states that the respondent may require the holder of a driver’s licence at any time to provide medical information, and failure to do so provides a ground for suspension under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the HTA.

c. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal for a suspension under s. 32(5)(b)(ii). The Tribunal may hear appeals only for decisions made under s. 32(5)(b)(i) because it is the only subsection where a right of appeal to the Tribunal has been prescribed. The applicable regulatory provision is s. 25.1 of the Regulation which states: “A decision made by the Minister under subclause 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act is prescribed as a kind of decision a person may appeal under s. 50 of the Act.”

14In support of the motion, the respondent relied on the suspension letter dated November 15, 2024 appealed by the appellant in his Notice of Appeal, the suspension letter requesting additional medical documentation, the appellant’s driving record, certificates of service of the motion materials on the appellant, and written submissions. The respondent also made oral submissions.

15The appellant confirmed that he had received the respondent’s motion materials. The appellant made oral submissions in response to the motion.

16To summarize the appellant’s submissions, the appeal should be heard by the Tribunal because he believes he has given all required medical information to the respondent, and the respondent has no proof that he is not fit to drive a motor vehicle safely.

17The appellant did not make any submissions specifically about the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear his appeal. However, the appellant submitted that he believes his driver’s licence has been wrongfully suspended based on a police report that he believes is false, he believes he does not have any reported medical condition, he needs to have his driver’s licence re-instated for personal and financial reasons, and he “hopes” the Tribunal has jurisdiction. Also, the appellant submitted that s. 47(1) and 32(5)(b)(i) apply to his driver’s licence suspension and he does have a right of appeal to the Tribunal.The appellant also believes that he has been treated unfairly by the respondent.

RESULT OF THE RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

18We conclude that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Given that we have found that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, the appeal is dismissed without a hearing on the merits.

19Both parties were advised at the hearing that the appeal is dismissed for reasons to follow later in writing. These are our reasons.

ANALYSIS

The Suspension of the Appellant’s Driver’s Licence is under s. 32(5)(b)(ii)

20The Tribunal is created by statute and has only the powers given to it by legislation; here, the HTA and the Regulation.

21Section 50(1) of the HTA provides for an appeal of a decision under s. 32(5) of the HTA for which there is a right of appeal pursuant to a regulation made under clause 32(14)(n) or a decision or order of the Registrar under s. 17 or 47. Section 25.1 of the Regulation provides that a decision made by the Minister under subclause 32(5)(b)(i) of the HTA is prescribed as a kind of decision a person may appeal under s. 50 of the HTA.

22There is no right of appeal provided for a decision under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the HTA.

23We find that the Notice was made by the respondent under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the HTA for the following reasons.

24The Notice expressly provides that it is made under s. 32(5) of the HTA. We agree with the respondent’s submission that although the Notice does not specify which clause of s. 32(5), the motion materials before us make it clear in three ways that the suspension is under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) for failing to submit required medical information. The three ways are as follows.

25Firstly, the Notice states the reason for the suspension: “REASON: FAILURE TO SUBMIT A SATISFACTORY MEDICAL REPORT”.

26Secondly, the Notice states: “YOUR DRIVER’S LICENCE WILL BE REINSTATED WHEN YOU FILE A SATISFACTORY MEDICAL REPORT.”

27Thirdly, the respondent filed the appellant’s driving record which shows that the November 25, 2025 suspension is for “fail to file medical”.

28As a matter of law, we are satisfied that the respondent is authorized by the HTA and clause 15(1)(e) of the Regulation to ask a driver at any time to provide medical information. Failure to provide medical information as required and failure to do so provides a ground for suspension under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the HTA. There is no jurisdiction granted to the Tribunal under the HTA or the Regulation to hear an appeal from a suspension of a driver’s licence made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the HTA. Also, there is no source of jurisdiction that allows the Tribunal to set aside this requirement or to exempt a driver from a requirement to submit medical information under clause 15(1)(e) of the Regulation.

29The combined effect of s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the HTA and clause 15(1)(e) of the Regulation compel the appellant to submit medical information when asked to do so by the Ministry. An appeal of the suspension resulting from this Notice is outside the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as described in s. 50 of the HTA. This principle applies to this appeal.

The Suspension of the Appellant’s Driver’s Licence is not under s. 17 or s. 47

30Although there is a right of appeal to the Tribunal from a decision or order of the respondent made under s. 17 or 47 of the HTA, there is no evidence before us that the Notice was made under these sections of the HTA.

31To the contrary, the Notice expressly states otherwise, specifically that it was made under s. 32(5). We have already found for the reasons set out above that the Notice was made more specifically under s. 32(5).

32Sections 17 or 47 are not cited as the basis for the Notice and we cannot impute this to the Notice on the motion materials and the submissions before us at the hearing.

APPEAL ON THE MERITS NOT DETERMINED AT THE HEARING

33Given that we have found that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we decline to proceed to hear the appellant’s appeal on the merits.

CONCLUSION

34We find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal and we dismiss this appeal. Given that we have found that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we decline to determine the merits of the appeal itself.

POST-HEARING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT

35On March 13, 2025 after the hearing had concluded, the appellant unexpectedly sent to the Tribunal a written submission consisting of an email to the Tribunal, and three documents comprised of three pages, two pages, and one page (“attached documents”), that the appellant describes as “details of all I said in the hearing”.

36The attached documents appear to be the speaking notes used by the appellant at the hearing. The appellant had an opportunity to make these submissions orally at the hearing and substantially did so.

37The email itself restates in a new way many of the submissions made orally by the appellant at the hearing, states the appellant’s disagreement with the decision of the panel made at the hearing, and indicates his intention to take further proceedings against “…the MTO The OPP, & Tribunals Ontario”.

38Having reviewed the appellant’s post-hearing submission, we note that to the extent that the appellant disagrees with the decision made by the Tribunal, this was made clear by the appellant at the hearing. To the extent that the appellant’s post-hearing submission repeats submission he made at the hearing, these submissions were heard by the panel, and taken into consideration prior to making the decision on the respondent’s motion. To the extent that the appellant’s post-hearing submissions relate to the merits of the appeal and not to the respondent’s motion, these submissions were substantially heard by the panel, and taken into consideration prior to making the decision on the respondent’s motion.

39The appellant’s post-hearing submissions are not accepted as submissions given that the hearing is over. Further, had the written submissions been made prior to the hearing, they would have had no impact on the panel’s decision given that these submissions were substantially made orally at the hearing.

ORDER

40For the reasons set out above, we dismiss this appeal.

Released: March 27, 2025

__________________________

Dr. Erica Weinberg

Adjudicator

__________________________

Avril A. Farlam

Vice-Chair