WestWay Roadside Assist Inc. v. Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards, 2025 CanLII 69512

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16752/TSSEA

In the matter of an appeal from a refusal to issue a tow operator’s certificate under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 26, Sched 3.

Between:

WestWay Roadside Assist Inc.

Appellant

and

Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Caley Howard

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Taha Bin Milud, Representative

For the Respondent: Patrick Moore, Counsel

Heard by Videoconference: June 26, 2025

OVERVIEW

1WestWay Roadside Assist Inc., the appellant, appeals from a decision dated February 6, 2025 (the “Decision”), by the Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards, the respondent, refusing to issue a Tow Operator Certificate, under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, Chapter 26, Sched. 3 (the “Act”).

2The Decision is based on the grounds that the appellant has failed to meet the requirements under paragraphs 7, 10 and 15 of s. 8 of Ontario Regulation 167/23 (the “Regulation”) made under the Act.

3The appellant appeals the Decision to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), pursuant to s. 37 of the Regulation.

ISSUES

4The issues in dispute are:

i. Whether the appellant has failed to meet the requirements for certification set out in paragraph 7, 10 or 15 of s. 8 of the Regulation; and

ii. Whether the Decision should be confirmed, modified or set aside by the Tribunal under s. 37(4) of the Regulation.

RESULT

5I find that the appellant has failed to meet the requirement set out in paragraph 15 of s. 8 of the Regulation. Specifically, a person related to the appellant has not always provided towing services competently and safely.

6I confirm the decision of the respondent.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Non-attendance of the Appellant

7The hearing was scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on June 26, 2025. Taha Bin Milud, the appellant’s corporate officer, was not in attendance at 9:30 a.m. The case management officer contacted him, and he joined the hearing at approximately 9:45 a.m. and the hearing commenced.

8Mr. Bin Milud advised the Tribunal that he was not able to participate in the hearing as he had to work. Mr. Bin Milud stated that he was not aware of the hearing date, although he confirmed that he participated in the case conference on April 16, 2025, at which the parties agreed they were available to attend a hearing on either June 24, June 25 or June 26, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. I am also satisfied that the Tribunal sent the notice of hearing to the email address the appellant included on the Notice of Appeal and sent a reminder email to the same email address on June 20, 2025.

9I advised Mr. Bin Milud that the respondent had the onus of proof at the hearing and that if Mr. Bin Milud did not participate, the Tribunal would proceed without the appellant’s evidence or cross examination of the respondent’s witness. Mr. Bin Milud was not seeking an adjournment and was content for the hearing to proceed without him. Mr. Bin Milud left the hearing.

10The respondent made no submissions on the issue.

11Pursuant to Rule 3.7.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules (the “Rules”), if a party is unable to attend a hearing in progress, the Tribunal must consider the reasons for the non-attendance and may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence or make any order that it considers appropriate in the circumstances.

12In these circumstances, where the appellant was provided with notice of the hearing date, attended the hearing and advised that he could not participate as he had to work, did not seek an adjournment and was content for the hearing to proceed without him, I found that it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing in the appellant’s absence.

ANALYSIS

A person related to the appellant does not meet the qualifications and requirements for the issuance of a tow operator certificate

13I find an entity related to the appellant, in this case West Way Roadside Assistance Inc. (“Assistance Inc.”), does not meet certain requirements for the issuance of a tow operator certificate, specifically the requirements set out in paragraph 7 of s. 8 of the Regulation. As a result, the appellant does not meet the requirements of paragraph 15 of s. 8 of the Regulation.

14The respondent has the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, at least one of the grounds set out in the decision. The decision states that the appellant does not meet the requirements set out in paragraphs 7, 10 and 15 of s. 8 of the Regulation.

15Paragraph 7 of s. 8 of the Regulation requires an applicant for a tow operator certificate to have always provided towing services competently and safely.

16Paragraph 10 of s. 8 of the Regulation requires an applicant, if an individual, to be a fit and proper person to be a tow operator having regard to the individual’s character, integrity and past conduct, including any breaches of the code of conduct.

17Paragraph 15 of s. 8 of the Regulation requires that any person related to the applicant must meet the requirements set out in paragraphs 7 and 10.

18The respondent submits that Rabie Bin Milud and Sauad Bin Milud were the corporate officers of Assistance Inc., which provided towing services in the Ottawa area prior to the implementation of the provincial regime for the regulation of tow operators under the Act. The respondent submits that it refused to issue a Tow Operator Certificate and a Storage Certificate to Assistance Inc. due to the poor safety records of Assistance Inc. and Rabie Bin Milud, the director of Assistance Inc. The respondent submits that Taha Bin Milud, the brother of Rabie Bin Milud, created the appellant for the purpose of allowing Rabie Bin Milud to obtain the necessary certificates under the Act to continue to operate his towing business.

Rabie Bin Milud and West Way Roadside Assistance Inc. (“Assistance Inc.”) are related to the appellant for the purpose of the Regulation

19I find that Rabie Bin Milud, Sauad Bin Milud and Assistance Inc. are all related to the appellant for the purpose of s. 8 of the Regulation.

20Section 1(3)(c) of the Regulation provides that an applicant for a tow operator certificate is related to a person if either of them, directly or indirectly, controls or controlled or manages or managed the other. Section 1(3)(d) of the Regulation provides that an applicant is related to a person if they have or have had common officers or directors or they are or have been controlled, directly or indirectly, by the same persons.

21The respondent submits that the appellant’s sole corporate officer, Taha Bin Milud, is the brother of Rabie Bin Milud and the son of Sauad Bin Milud. The respondent further submits that while Rabie Bin Milud and Sauad Bin Milud were the corporate officers of Assistance Inc., the three Bin Miluds together controlled and managed both Assistance Inc. and the appellant, making them all related to the appellant for the purpose of s. 8 of the Regulation. In support, the respondent relies on the testimony of Daniel Armstrong, Senior Regulatory Compliance Administrator for the Ministry of Transportation, as well as on a variety of documentary evidence.

22Mr. Armstrong testified that the Bin Miluds explained their familial relationship to him during his investigations of Assistance Inc. and Rabie Bin Milud. He further testified that his computer system flagged them as potentially related due to their use of a common mailing address.

23The corporate names of Assistance Inc. and the appellant are nearly identical (West Way Roadside Assistance Inc. and Westway Roadside Assist Inc.). The respondent submits that this is because the appellant was created in order to allow Assistance Inc. to carry on business as seamlessly as possible under the new corporate entity.

24The refusal to issue a tow operator’s certificate to Assistance Inc. was dated June 26, 2024. The appellant’s articles of incorporation indicate an incorporation date of July 14, 2024. The respondent submits that the timing supports an inference that the appellant was incorporated in response to the refusal.

25The articles of incorporation for Assistance Inc. indicate its registered office is located at 338 Berrigan Drive in Ottawa and indicate that the corporate officers are Rabie Bin Milud and Sauad Bin Milud. The City of Ottawa’s database records and the Land Registry records for that address confirm that this property is owned by Taha Bin Milud and Sauad Bin Milud.

26The articles of incorporation for the appellant indicate its registered office is located at 4020 Leitrim Road in Ottawa. The screen shot of Assistance Inc.’s application for a vehicle storage certificate, which was submitted by Rabie Bin Milud, indicates that Assistance Inc. stored its vehicles at 4020 Leitrim Road in Ottawa.

27The appellant’s application for a tow operator’s certificate uses a mailing address for the appellant of 219 Zinnia Way in Manotick, Ottawa. The City of Ottawa’s database records and the Land Registry records for that address confirm that this property is owned by Rabie Bin Milud. Mr. Armstrong testified that the drivers’ licences of Taha, Sauad and Rabie Bin Milud all listed 219 Zinnia Way in Manotick, Ottawa as their residential address.

28I find that the evidence regarding the overlap of addresses demonstrates that the Bin Miluds have all lived together and have used property owned by each other for business and personal purposes, demonstrating that they are related individuals. I also find that the use of 4020 Leitrim Road in Ottawa as the appellant’s registered office, in conjunction with the similar name choice for the appeallant, indicates an intention for the appellant to continue providing the towing services previously provided by Assistance Inc.

29Taha Bin Milud indicated on the Notice of Appeal that he would not hire family members to work for the appellant. However, I find that it would not be necessary for the appellant to employ Rabie Bin Milud for him to be involved in the control or management of the appellant. This finding is supported by the evidence that the appellant’s mailing address and Taha Bin Milud’s residential address are owned by and shared with Rabie Bin Milud and that Taha and Rabie Bin Milud are related individuals.

30Given all of the above evidence taken together, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that Rabie Bin Milud, Taha Bin Milud and Sauad Bin Milud controlled and managed, either directly or indirectly, both Assistance Inc. and the appellant. Therefore, pursuant to s. 1(3)(c) of the Regulation, Rabie Bin Milud is related to the appellant. Further, pursuant to s. 1(3)(d) of the Regulation, Assistance Inc. is related to the appellant.

Assistance Inc. has not always provided towing services competently and safely

31I find that Assistance Inc. has not always provided towing services competently and safely, as required by paragraph 7 of s. 8 of the Regulation.

32The respondent submits that Assistance Inc. has not always provided towing services competently and safely. In support of this submission, it relies on the testimony of Mr. Armstrong, the Commercial Vehicle Operator Record (CVOR abstract) of Assistance Inc., the CVOR suspension and seizure order issued to Assistance Inc., dated April 26, 2023, and the June 26, 2024, Refusal to Issue a Tow Operator Certificate and Refusal to Issue a Vehicle Storage Certificate for Assistance Inc.

33Mr. Armstrong testified that the poor safety record of Assistance Inc., and its failure to apply for and obtain a municipal towing licence with the City of Ottawa, led to the suspension of its CVOR certificate on April 26, 2023. Mr. Armstrong testified that even after that suspension, Assistance Inc. continued to operate and received three convictions on June 3, 2023, which are confirmed by the CVOR abstract.

34Mr. Armstrong testified that many of the convictions and inspections on the CVOR abstract were related to road safety, including convictions for speeding and failing to stop at a stoplight. He testified that these behaviours are indicative of “chasing”, where tow drivers race to the scene of an accident. Mr. Armstrong also testified that on multiple occasions Assistance Inc. vehicles were found to have out-of-service defects (“OOS defects”), which pose an imminent hazard to the public. The defects in question included faulty signal lights, improperly secured loads, and flat tires. Further, Mr. Armstrong testified that one of Assistance Inc.’s vehicles was involved in a collision on August 5, 2021 where the driver was found to have been following too closely behind another vehicle.

35The CVOR abstract for Assistance Inc. shows that between the period of December 2019 and June 2023, Assistance Inc. vehicles were involved in 33 convictions under the Act, seven inspections at which defects were found and one collision. Mr. Armstrong testified that Assistance Inc. was on a list of towing companies that the Deputy Director of Towing and Storage Standards had serious concerns about.

36The June 26, 2024 Refusal to Issue a Tow Operator Certificate for Assistance Inc. indicates that one of the grounds for the decision was the failure of Assistance Inc. to meet the requirement of always providing towing services competently and safely.

37Based on the above evidence of Assistance Inc’s poor safety record, I find that the respondent has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that Assistance Inc. does not meet the requirement of having always provided towing services competently and safely. Therefore, pursuant to paragraph 15 of s. 8 of the Regulation, the person related to the applicant does not meet the qualifications and requirements set out in paragraph 7. Since Assistance Inc. is not an individual, paragraph 10 does not apply. I find that the person related to the applicant, Assistance Inc., does not meet the qualifications set out in paragraph 15 of s. 8 of the Regulation. Therefore, the respondent has proven one ground of the Decision.

38As the respondent need only prove one ground to uphold the refusal, I have not analysed the remaining grounds or the evidence that related to the other related person, Rabie Bin Milud.

I order the respondent to confirm the decision

39Section 37(4) of the Regulation provides that the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the Decision of the respondent.

40The respondent submits that I should confirm the Decision because paragraph 15 of s. 8 of the Regulation is vital to fulfilling the goals of the provincial towing safety regime that was put in place by the Act and the Regulation as it fulfills an anti-avoidance function. The respondent relies on the testimony of Mr. Armstrong.

41I did not have the benefit of any evidence or submissions from the appellant.

42Mr. Armstrong testified that the goals of the towing and vehicle storage certification regime are to ensure road safety and to protect consumers from nefarious tow operators. He testified that the respondent performs a thorough review of all applicants for a Tow Operator Certificate to ensure that anyone who receives a certificate will not engage in unsafe or predatory behaviours that have been problematic in the industry.

43I agree with the respondent’s submission that the qualifications and requirements for certification set out in s. 8 of the Regulation are ineffective if any person who is denied a Tow Operator Certificate can circumvent the denial by incorporating a new corporate entity with a spotless safety record. I have found that Assistance Inc. and the appellant have been controlled by the same person, or people, albeit indirectly. I have found that evidence before me supports the inference that the appellant was incorporated to continue to provide the towing services previously provided by Assistance Inc. In these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to confirm the Decision of the respondent.

Conclusion

44I find that Assistance Inc., a person related to the appellant, has not always provided towing services competently and safely. As a result, the appellant does not meet the requirement for issuance of a Tow Operator Certificate set out in paragraph 15 of s. 8 of the Regulation.

ORDER

45Pursuant to s. 37(4) of the Regulation made under the Act, I confirm the Decision of the respondent.