Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16931/ADLS

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

Between:

William Szabo Verzoc

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

MOTION DECISION

PANEL:

Kailey Minnings, M.D., Member

Jan Dymond, Vice Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the appellant:

William Szabo Verzoc, Appellant

For the respondent:

Ian Sookram, Agent

HEARD: via Videoconference

April 24, 2025

OVERVIEW

1The driver’s licence of the appellant, William Szabo Verzoc, was suspended on March 5, 2025 for 90 days under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (“the Act”) after he provided a breath sample to a police officer which showed a concentration of alcohol in his blood of over 80 milligrams in 100 millilitres of blood.

2On April 4, 2025, the appellant filed a notice of appeal under s.50.1(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.

3On April 15, 2025, the respondent filed a Notice of Motion (“respondent’s motion”) requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the appellant’s appeal without a hearing because it relates to a matter outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

4On April 16, 2025, the appellant filed a Notice of Motion (“appellant’s motion”) requesting that two of the respondent’s agents be excluded from participating in this proceeding.

5On April 17, 2025, the Tribunal directed that the motions of both parties be heard together via teleconference on April 24 2025 and provided deadlines for written submissions.

6The respondent filed a written submission in response to the appellant’s motion on April 23, 2025.

7The appellant did not file further written submissions in the format required; however, he did respond by email indicating his objection to the respondent’s motion.

8On April 24, 2025, the appellant submitted a completed Accommodation Request Form requesting that the motion hearing be conducted via videoconference. The appellant’s accommodation request was granted.

9On April 24, 2025, therefore, the parties attended a videoconference hearing on both motions. The parties were advised that the hearing was being recorded and that the recording was for internal use only and would not be available to the parties or the public.

10After reviewing and recording the documentary evidence previously submitted by each party, we explained that we would consider the motions individually and that the onus for each motion is on the mover. We invited each party to make oral submissions, as follows: five minutes each for the mover of each motion; five minutes each for the responder to each motion; and two minutes each for the mover of each motion to reply.

11We reserved our decisions on both motions.

ISSUES

12The issues in dispute are:

i. Whether the appeal relates to a matter that is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (respondent’s motion); and

ii. Whether the named agents of the respondent should be removed from the proceeding because of bias (appellant’s motion).

RESULT

13For the reasons which follow, the Tribunal Orders:

i. That the appeal relates to a matter within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the matter shall proceed to a hearing on the merits, as scheduled. The respondent’s motion is denied.

ii. That the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to remove the representative of a party and that the respondent may be represented by representatives of its choice. The appellant’s motion is denied.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter.

14Section 50.1(1) of the Act provides an individual whose driver’s licence has been suspended for 90 days under s. 48.3 or 48.3.1 of the Act with a statutory right of appeal to the Tribunal, while s. 50.1(2) identifies various grounds under which an appeal can be made.

15The respondent submits that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal because the appellant does not qualify for the ground under which he filed his appeal.

16The respondent submits that the Notice to Registrar (“Notice”) indicates that the appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended under s.48.3 of the Act and that the appellant, therefore, only is entitled to argue the grounds for appeal found under 50.1(2)(a) which stipulates that:

(a) in the case of a suspension under section 48.3,

(i) that the person whose licence was suspended is not the same individual to whom a demand was made under section 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada), or

(ii) that the person failed or refused to comply with a demand made under section 320.27 or 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada) because he or she was unable to do so for a medical reason.

17The respondent submits that the ground under which the appellant appeals is not available to an individual whose suspension is related to alcohol only.

18The respondent did not submit case law or jurisprudence in support of its position that the matter should be dismissed without a hearing, nor did they identify any prejudice to the respondent should the matter proceed to a hearing.

19The appellant requests that the respondent’s motion be denied. He submits that he is entitled to appeal under the additional ground found under 50.1(2)(b)(ii) of the Act which states:

b) in the case of a suspension under section 48.3.1,

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

(ii) that the person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle or vessel was not impaired by a drug or by a combination of a drug and alcohol, and the person had a medical condition, at the time of the activity for which the suspension was imposed, that impaired his or her performance of the evaluation that was conducted under subsection 320.28 (2) of the Criminal Code (Canada). 2015, c. 14, s. 16 (2); 2019, c. 8, Sched. 1, s. 20; 2021, c. 26, Sched. 1, s. 5.

20The appellant submits that there were two charges, not one as indicated on the Notice and that the Notice was completed by an officer other than the arresting officer. The appellant submitted documentary evidence to substantiate that there were two charges, namely Impaired Operation Of A Conveyance, CC 320.14(1)(a); and Exceed Blood Alcohol Concentration, CC 320.14(1)(b). He further submits that he takes medication and that the grounds under which he has appealed are grounds he specifically discussed with Tribunal staff and “that (they) certainly had no issue with me appealing.”

21We have considered the positions of both parties. We understand the respondent’s position based on the information contained in the Notice indicating that the suspension is under s. 48.3 of the Act; however, we find that as someone charged under s.48.3 or s.48.3.1 of the Act, the appellant has a right to appeal the suspension of his driver’s licence. Further, we find that an appellant has a right to select the grounds of appeal they believe are applicable to their situation and to prove their entitlement to those grounds at a hearing on the merits.

22We would also note, however, that the role of Tribunal administrative staff is to provide information only and that information provided cannot be relied upon as legal advice as to an appellant’s eligibility for a specific ground of appeal. The onus is on an appellant to review the options that may be available to them as well as the relevant statutes and regulations to determine whether a specific ground may apply in their circumstances.

23In the circumstances of the matter before us, we find that to dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the merits would be prejudicial to the appellant. We further find that there is no prejudice to the respondent in proceeding. At a hearing, the onus will be on the appellant to establish the merits of his appeal including that the ground under which he is appealing is available to him because his licence was, in fact, suspended under s. 48.3.1 of the Act (drugs or drugs and alcohol) and not 48.3 (alcohol only) as indicated in the Notice.

24For the reasons above, the respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing is denied.

The registrar has the right to choose its representatives.

25Section 10, Right to Representation, of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter S.22 states that a party to a proceeding may be represented by a representative.

26The appellant submits that, in his opinion, the respondent’s representatives have demonstrated implicit bias in their handling of his appeal and for that reason should be removed.

27The respondent submits that parties before the Licence Appeal Tribunal are entitled to be represented by the representatives that they choose. They submit that the appellant has no right to have the respondent’s representatives removed because he feels animus towards the representatives or is in disagreement with the arguments that they have put forward.

28The Tribunal has the power under Rule 3.2 to control its proceedings by making orders to prevent the abuse of process, including, in appropriate circumstances, removing a party’s representative. However, we have been provided with no authority supporting removing counsel for one party on the basis of ‘bias’ against the other party and are not prepared to find that it is appropriate to do so, whether in general or in the circumstances of this case.

29For the reasons above, the appellant’s motion to exclude certain representatives of the respondent is dismissed.

ORDER

30The Tribunal Orders:

iii. The respondent’s motion is dismissed.

iv. The appellant’s motion is dismissed.

v. The matter shall proceed to a hearing as scheduled on Friday, May 9, 2025.

vi. The Tribunal shall schedule a case conference to address procedural details required to conduct the hearing.