Tribunals Ontario

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17029/ADLS

In the matter of an appeal from a suspension under s. 48.3 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8

Between:

Randhir Singh Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

PANEL: Dr. Dimitri Louvish, M.D. Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES: For the Appellant: Randhir Singh, Self-represented, with assistance of his friend Prabjop Kaur for translation into Punjabi For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent

Heard by teleconference: May 30, 2025

Overview

1Randhir Singh, the appellant, appeals from a 90-day administrative driver’s licence suspension (“ADLS”) of his driver’s licence under s. 48.3 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”). The ADLS was made on October 14, 2023 as a result of the appellant being found to have had a blood alcohol level of over 80 mg/100 ml after giving a breath sample as demanded by a police officer.

2The appellant seeks to set aside the ADLS. The appellant’s ground of appeal as set out in his Notice of Appeal is that he is not the same individual to whom a demand was made or submitted to an evaluation under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada) (i.e. a case of mistaken identity).

ISSUE

3The issue to be determined at the hearing is whether the appellant is the same individual to whom a demand was made or who submitted to an evaluation under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada) (i.e. a case of mistaken identity).

RESULT

4We confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence. For the reasons that follow, we find that the appellant has failed to establish that he is not the same individual to whom a demand was made or submitted to an evaluation under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada) (i.e. a case of mistaken identity).

LAW:

5A person whose driver’s licence has been suspended under s. 48.3 or s. 48.3.1 of the HTA may appeal the suspension to the Tribunal under section 50.1 of the HTA.

6Section 50.1(2)(a) of the HTA sets out the only grounds on which on a person may appeal a s. 48.3 suspension of their driver’s licence:

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

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

iii. in the case of a suspension under s. 48.3.1, 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 s. 320.28(2) of the Criminal Code (Canada).

7Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50.1(4) of the HTA, confirm the suspension or may order that the suspension be set aside.

8The appellant has the burden of proof in this appeal.

ANALYSIS:

This is not a case of mistaken identity. The appellant gave the breath sample demanded

9After considering the totality of the evidence, we find that the appellant has failed to establish he is not the same individual to whom a demand was made or submitted to an evaluation under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada) (i.e. a case of mistaken identity). Our reasons are as follows.

10The appellant admitted at the hearing that he gave the breath sample as demanded by the police.

11The appellant admitted at the hearing that his name and address on the documents filed by the Registrar are his correct name and address.

12Constable Irmya confirmed that the appellant gave a breath sample and explained the reason for the demand. Constable Irmya testified that he arranged for police personnel who speak Punjabi to explain the demand to the appellant because the appellant said he didn’t speak English and that the appellant spoke Punjabi, and that the breath sample was given to the technician by the appellant and, as a consequence of the breath sample, a 90-day ADLS made.

13Constable Irmya testified that the demand for the breath sample arose during the investigation of a collision in which the vehicle owned by the appellant was involved on October 14, 2023. Constable Irmya said that he was told the two occupants of the appellant’s vehicle had fled on foot following the collision and that he found the appellant on a person’s lawn not far from the scene of the collision, looking toward the collision scene over a fence. At that time the appellant was carrying the key to the vehicle. Constable Irmya testified that he identified the appellant as the owner of the vehicle through a records check after obtaining identification from the appellant. When the appellant was asked about a second individual, the appellant had no knowledge to share with Constable Irmya on October 14, 2023. Criminal charges were also laid against the appellant.

14That a breath sample was demanded from the appellant, was given by the appellant, and that the appellant was found to have had a blood alcohol level of over 80 mg/100 ml is consistent with the documents filed by the Registrar.

15Based on the admission of the appellant, the evidence of Constable Irmya, and the records filed by the Registrar, it is clear from the evidence that a demand for a breath sample was made on October 14, 2023, that the appellant is the person who gave the breath sample, and that the result was that the appellant had a blood alcohol level of over 80 mg/100 ml.

16The onus is on the appellant to prove that he is not the same individual to whom a demand was made or submitted to an evaluation under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada) (i.e. a case of mistaken identity). The appellant’s testimony and his evidence fall short of establishing this. To the contrary, the appellant’s admission and the documentary evidence filed establishes that the appellant is the same individual to whom a demand was made, and he submitted to an evaluation.

17Much of the appellant’s evidence and his submissions was directed to establishing that the criminal charges from the collision were dismissed by the court, and that as a result, the appellant asks that the Tribunal remove the record of this 90-day ADLS suspension from his driving record.

18We decline to do so. The appellant filed court documents showing that he was arrested and charged on October 14, 2023 with failure to stop after accident under s. 320.16(1), operation of a motor vehicle while impaired under s. 320.14(1)(a), and operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 80 mg or more of alcohol in 100 ml of blood under s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Canada) and that, after numerous attendances, these three charges were dismissed on February 25, 2025. The appellant testified that these charges were dismissed by the court because no one saw him driving the vehicle although he submitted no documents from the court giving any reason for the dismissal of these three charges.

19The fact that these three charges were dismissed is not helpful to the determination that we must make, whether the appellant is the same individual to whom a demand was made or who submitted to an evaluation under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada) (i.e. a case of mistaken identity). The court deals with criminal charges and disposes of them on a different standard of proof, specifically beyond a reasonable doubt. The Tribunal decides cases based on a lower standard of proof, specifically a balance of probabilities.

20There is no question based on the appellant’s admissions, the documents before us, and the evidence of Constable Irmya that the breath sample was demanded of the appellant and that he gave it.

21We note that the appellant’s 90 day ADLS suspension ended in January, 2024. Neither party raised the issue of timeliness of the appeal and we make no decision on this point.

Conclusion

22For the reasons above, we find that the appellant has failed to establish that he is not the same individual to whom a demand was made or submitted to an evaluation under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada) (i.e. a case of mistaken identity).

ORDER

23We confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Dimitri Louvish, M.D.

Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair