Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16269/CVOR

In the matter of an appeal from a Suspension and Seizure Order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under section 47 of the Highway Traffic Act, RSO 1990, Ch H.8 (the “Act”).

Between:

Sunday Movers Inc.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Bruce Stanton

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Suresh Mariyathas, Director (Self-Represented)

For the Respondent:

Patrick Moore, Counsel

Interpreter:

Vais Navi Uthayakumar, Tamil Language Interpreter

Court Reporter:

Elizabeth Pilbrow

Heard by videoconference:

December 18, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Sunday Movers Inc. (the “appellant”) appeals from the Suspension and Seizure Order issued it by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) on September 6, 2024, to take effect September 20, 2024 (the “Order”).

2The appellant filed an appeal with the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) pursuant to section 50(1) of the Act, on September 19, 2024.

3In accordance with section 50(2) of the Act, the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the Order.

ISSUES

4The issues to be determined are:

1. Whether the Registrar has grounds for the Suspension and Seizure Order, pursuant to section 47(1) of the Act; and

2. If so, what is the appropriate outcome.

RESULT

5I find the Registrar has grounds for the Suspension and Seizure Order pursuant to section 47(1) of the Act. The Order is confirmed.

ANALYSIS

Circumstances of the suspension and seizure order

6The appellant operates several commercial trucks for residential and commercial moving services under a Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (“CVOR”) certificate, number 203-114-200.

7The CVOR program is operated by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) to promote the safe operation of trucks and buses on Ontario’s roadways.

8The appellant’s safety performance and/or rating is not at issue in this matter, but it has incurred a number of traffic convictions under the Act for speeding, not having a valid licence plate permit (sticker), lack of drivers’ licence credentials, and incomplete or lack of documentation. The convictions were assessed fines by the court and they have not been paid. The subject convictions include several that were incurred under the appellant’s previous corporate name, Emergency Hub. Inc.

9On June 27, 2024, the respondent notified the appellant by letter that it had accumulated outstanding and defaulted court fines totalling $3,129.81. The letter instructed the appellant to pay the fines and provide confirmation of payment no later than August 11, 2024.

10As of September 30, 2024, the appellant owed the court outstanding fines and interest in the amount of $3,191.27.

11The respondent issued the Order on the basis of the unpaid fines, advising that the suspension would be lifted, and licence plates returned, once the outstanding fines were paid.

The Registrar’s grounds for issuing the Order

12I find the respondent has proven there were grounds under the Act to issue the Order.

13The respondent relies on subsection 47(1)(g) of the Act as grounds for issuing the Order, which states that the Registrar may suspend and seize the CVOR certificate and the licence plates of its related commercial vehicles for any sufficient reason not articulated in subsections 47(1)(d), (e), or (f). In other words, for any “sufficient” reason the Registrar determines.

14Although “sufficient reason” is not defined in Act for these purposes, what constitutes sufficient or insufficient reason ought to be considered in the context of the legislation and its regulations, which is to promote public safety on provincial highways.

15Due to the higher risk that larger, heavier commercial vehicles pose to highway safety, the CVOR program monitors CVOR holders’ activities (tracking collisions, convictions and inspections, and conducting facility audits) to provide reports and feedback such that operators can adjust their practices and policies to meet acceptable safety standards.

16When a certificate holder falls below an acceptable standard, for example a violation rate of 35% or more, the CVOR program intervenes and takes steps to encourage the carrier to improve its performance. The interventions become more consequential the worse the carrier’s safety performance becomes. They might start with a letter of caution, proceed to an interview with MTO Carrier and Safety Enforcement Branch officials and if performance continues to deteriorate, to notices of suspension or cancellation, show cause meetings, and up to immediate suspension orders based on the urgency of the circumstances. Each of the interventions is designed to encourage the carrier to take action to get its operations into compliance and/or back to an acceptable safety performance standard.

17The respondent submits that fines issued by the court for traffic convictions apply the same principle. It submits that as a financial penalty, fines act as a deterrent against non-compliant behaviour or activities. The imposition of financial penalties for non-compliance, therefore, is intended to encourage better behaviour and performance, hence improved highway safety.

18The respondent submits that the appellant’s neglect of paying court fines demonstrates indifference to its responsibilities as a corporation in meeting its legal obligations, and to the consequences of the highway traffic convictions it incurred as a CVOR holder.

19The respondent referred me to section 16 of the Act which defines a CVOR operator (a CVOR certificate holder) as the person directly or indirectly responsible for the operation of a commercial motor vehicle including the conduct of the driver. As an operator under the Act, the appellant is responsible for its activities. The respondent submits that ignoring court fines is an example of shunning its legal responsibilities.

20The respondent submits that, in addition to not paying its court fines, the appellant has neglected to keep MTO apprised of its contact information, as it is required to do as a CVOR holder pursuant to sections 1.4 and 6.1 of O. Reg. 424/97 (the “Regulation”), under the Act. A CVOR holder must notify the Registrar within 15 days of any change to its email address or physical address.

21Isabel Jennings, a senior program administrator with the Carrier Safety and Enforcement Branch of the MTO, testified that MTO sent the Order to the appellant’s last known email address, info@sundaymovers.ca, on September 6, 2024, however it was returned as undeliverable the following day. Jennings then sent the Order by courier, to the last known physical address of the appellant, 14-380 Finchdene Sq, Scarborough, ON.

22Suresh Mariyathas, the appellant’s sole director, testified that the appellant changed its physical address in August 2024 and it lost control of the email address on file with MTO (info@sundaymovers.ca) more than one year prior to that, i.e., sometime prior to August 2023. He became aware of the Order only by checking his physical mailbox at the former Finchdene Court location.

23The respondent submits that it is not relying on the appellant’s neglect of keeping MTO apprised of its address and contact information as a basis for issuing the order, but it considers it an example of how the appellant has been inattentive to its responsibilities as a CVOR holder.

24Mr. Mariyathas, on behalf of the appellant, opposed paying any fines that were assessed against the drivers of any of its commercial vehicles. However, the evidence demonstrates that only the fines assessed against the appellant are at issue.

25The respondent confirmed that none of the court fines listed in the Order relate to fines charged to the appellant’s drivers. The Order includes only those fines that were assessed against the appellant, and its previous legal name, as the CVOR holder.

26Mr. Mariyathas also testified that the appellant opposes paying the fines associated with two rental trucks (with plates BR98213, and BR9033) and referred me to an Intervention and Event Details report for events between January 1, 2019 and September 6, 2024. The report lists five instances of rental trucks with those plate numbers being the subject vehicle of a conviction or inspection under its CVOR.

27Ms. Jennings testified that if a carrier is using a rental truck and it is apprehended by police for a traffic offence, or it becomes the subject of a roadside inspection by an MTO official, the vehicle’s status as a rental does not negate the carrier’s obligations. The investigating officer would typically review the rental agreement and interview the driver to determine if the truck was being operated under the auspices of a CVOR. If so, the obligations for documents, vehicle standards, load security, and driver qualifications are the same as if the vehicle was owned by the carrier. Ms. Jennings testified that if the vehicle is under the care and control of a CVOR carrier, whether rented, leased or owned, it is subject to the carrier’s legal obligations and any convictions, collisions or inspections associated with it are recorded against its CVOR Carrier Safety Record. The evidence presented by the respondent reveals that the rental truck with licence number BR98213 was the subject vehicle in two convictions, for which the offences occurred on August 16, 2023, and fines of $532.42 and $543.88 were imposed on the appellant by the court.

28The respondent submits that the fines in question were issued by the court, not the MTO. The convictions have already been adjudicated and decided and fines imposed by the court. The opportunity to challenge the legality of the fines was at the court, not this Tribunal. The respondent referred me to copies of the Ministry of the Attorney General’s ICON Fine Reports as the basis of the outstanding fines referred to in the Order. The reports included seven outstanding fines issued to the appellant, and two outstanding fines issued to the appellant’s previous corporate name, Emergency Hub Inc., totalling $3,191.27.

29At the hearing, the appellant ultimately agreed to pay all the fines, save those associated with the rental truck, within the next seven days.

30I find the respondent has proven it has sufficient reason, pursuant to section 47(1)(g), to issue the Order.

31I give weight to the respondent’s submissions and the evidence of Ms. Jennings in establishing that the appellant has been inattentive to its obligations under the CVOR, for not paying its fines.

32I am persuaded that the non-payment of fines is a sufficient reason because, even though the related convictions themselves are not the basis of the Order, each of the fines is associated with a conviction and non-compliant behaviour directly related to the appellant’s activities as a CVOR holder. The fines are a consequence of the convictions yet the evidence before me suggests the appellant lends them little regard or importance.

33In the context of protecting highway safety, especially against the higher risks associated with commercial vehicles, CVOR holders are held to rigorous standards. I find that intervention is justified when a CVOR holder has shown indifference to the consequences of its non-compliant activities, as is the case in this matter.

34I reject the appellant’s argument that it is not responsible for the fines relating the rental truck because that question has already been decided by the court. I agree with the respondent that the appellant’s opportunity to challenge the legality of those convictions and/or the amount of the related fines was with the court. The Tribunal has no authority to consider the merits of the convictions, nor the amounts of the fines associated with them.

35I find that the appellant’s disregard for the consequences of its convictions, by not paying the associated, court-imposed fines, demonstrates sufficient reason to issue the Order.

Conclusion

36The respondent has proven on a balance of probabilities that there is sufficient reason, pursuant to section 47(1)(g) of the Act, to issue the Suspension and Seizure Order.

ORDER

37Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, the Suspension and Seizure Order dated September 6, 2024, is confirmed.