Zaid Al-Mashni v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 31133

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 48.3.1 of the Act.

Between:

Zaid Al-Mashni

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

PANEL:

Dr. Peter Savage

Rupinder Hans

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

No one appearing

For the Respondent:

Leila Pereira, Representative

Heard by teleconference:

March 25, 2025

BACKGROUND

1Zaid Al-Mashni (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to suspend his driver’s licence for 90 days under s. 48.3.1 of the Act effective January 1, 2025.

2A case conference was held by teleconference on February 25, 2025, and the matter was set down for a hearing on March 11, 2025.

3A few days prior to the hearing scheduled for March 11, 2025, the Registrar made a written request for an adjournment of the hearing date as its witness was unavailable to testify at the hearing. The motion was heard at the outset of the hearing on March 11, 2025. The appellant consented to the adjournment request, and advised he may be obtaining medical documentation in support of his position for reinstatement of his driver’s licence, and he also required additional time. The matter was adjourned to March 25, 2025, a date that both parties indicated they were available for a hearing.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

4The appellant failed to appear at the hearing on March 25, 2025, and we ordered the hearing to proceed in his absence.

5Pursuant to Rule 3.7.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the “Rules”), where a party who has been given notice of a hearing does not attend the hearing within 30 minutes of the scheduled start time, the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party.

6On March 11, 2025, the Tribunal sent the parties an Adjournment Order which stated that the hearing was adjourned to March 25, 2025, a date agreed to between the parties.

7On March 14, 2025, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing (“NOH”) to the parties advising that the hearing was scheduled for March 25, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. The NOH was forwarded to the appellant by sending a copy of the NOH to the email address provided by the appellant in his Notice of Appeal dated February 5, 2025. The Tribunal received no indication that the email was not received at that email address, and we are satisfied that the appellant was given notice of the hearing in accordance with Rule 3.7.1.

8The hearing commenced at 1:30 p.m. on March 25, 2025. The appellant did not attend the hearing at that time. The Tribunal waited the requisite 30 minutes per the Rules for the appellant to appear, during which time, the case management officer at the Tribunal attempted to contact the appellant without success. After 30 minutes had elapsed, the Tribunal ordered the hearing to proceed. At no point during the entirety of the hearing did the appellant appear.

ISSUES

9The issue in dispute is whether the appellant has established the grounds for appeal under s. 50.1(2) of the Act.

RESULT

10The appellant has failed to establish the grounds for appeal under s. 50.1(2) of the Act, and the suspension of his driver’s licence is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

The appellant has failed to establish grounds for appeal

11The appellant has failed to establish the grounds for appealing the suspension of his driver’s licence.

12Pursuant to s. 50.1(2)(b) of the Act, the only grounds on which a person may appeal a driver’s licence suspension under s. 48.3.1 and the only grounds on which the Tribunal may order that the suspension be set aside are:

i. that the person whose licence was suspended is not the same individual who submitted to an evaluation under s. 320.28(2) of the Criminal Code, or

ii. that the person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was not impaired by a drug or by a combination of a drug and alcohol, and the person had a medical condition that impaired their performance of the evaluation that was conducted under s. 320.28(2) of the Criminal Code.

13The onus of establishing one of the above grounds of appeal is on the appellant.

14The appellant was not in attendance at the hearing and did not present any evidence for consideration. As a result, the grounds of appeal set out in s. 48.3.1 of the Act were not established.

ORDER

15Given the above, the suspension of the appellant’s driver’s licence is confirmed.