RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Jan Dymond
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16823/MVIA
Case Name: Lennon v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant: James Wilson, Paralegal
For the Respondent: No submission filed
OVERVIEW
1On April 2, 2025, the appellant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated March 27, 2025 (“decision”).
2The appellant, Linda Lennon, appealed the 45-day impoundment of a 2013 GMC Sierra, licence plate 9804ZK, owned by John M. Lennon (the “owner”) under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). At the hearing, the respondent moved for dismissal of the appeal, because the appeal was not submitted nor signed by the registered owner of the vehicle, as required under s. 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (“Act”). I granted the respondent’s motion, because I found that the person who filed the application, Linda Lennon, was not the owner of the vehicle, nor were they able to produce documentation establishing their legal right to act on behalf of the owner, John Lennon.
3The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness;
b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; or
c) There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
4The appellant requests a reconsideration under Rule 18.2(c), namely that the appellant has now obtained new evidence that would have affected the result. The appellant requests that a new hearing/case conference be scheduled at the earliest possible juncture.
5The respondent did not file any submissions in response to the request for reconsideration.
RESULT
6I find that the appellant has not met their onus under Rule 18.2(c), because they have not established that their new evidence could not have been obtained previously.
ANALYSIS
7The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, or with the weight assigned to the evidence. The requestor must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
8I find the appellant has not established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(c), because they have not persuaded me that the evidence submitted as new evidence could not have been obtained previously.
9The appellant has submitted a copy of a duly executed continuing power of attorney for property (“POA”), dated January 25, 2002, appointing Linda Suzanne Lennon as attorney for John Michael Kevin Lennon with their reconsideration request. The appellant submits that this is new evidence that would have affected the result.
10At the hearing, the appellant’s representative acknowledged that he had advised the appellant of the need to provide the Tribunal with a copy of a POA, because she is not the registered owner. A POA was not filed in advance of the hearing. During the hearing, I provided the appellant with time to locate and submit a POA, but she was unable to locate an executed copy.
11I agree that the POA is new evidence that would likely have affected the result. However, in order to establish grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(c), the appellant also must demonstrate that the new evidence could not have been obtained previously.
12The POA is dated January 25, 2002. The incident that resulted in the motor vehicle being impounded occurred on March 5, 2025, and an appeal was filed by the appellant on March 10, 2025. The hearing took place on March 25, 2025. I find that the appellant has not met their onus under Rule 18.2(c), because I find the appellant has not shown how there was insufficient time between March 5 and March 25, 2025 to obtain and file a copy of the POA.
13As a result, I am not persuaded by the appellant that this new evidence could not have been obtained prior to the hearing. Once again, the test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold, and I find the appellant has not met this threshold.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
14For the reasons stated above, I find that the appellant has not satisfied the requirements under Rule 18.2(c), because they have not established that the evidence submitted as new evidence could not have been obtained previously.
15Pursuant to Rule 18.4(a), the appellant’s request is dismissed.
Jan Dymond
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: May 7, 2025