Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Citation: 1948430 Ontario Ltd. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 ONLAT 17028/CVOR

An appeal under from a Cancellation and Seizure Order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8

Between:

1948430 Ontario Ltd. Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: No one appeared

For the Respondent: Patrick Moore, Counsel

HEARD: July 11, 2025

OVERVIEW

11948430 Ontario Ltd. the appellant, is the holder of a Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (“CVOR”) certificate which allows it to operate commercial vehicles on public roads.

2The Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) issued a Cancellation and Seizure Order dated April 25, 2025 (the “Order”) pursuant to ss. 47 and 47.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) cancelling the appellant’s CVOR Certificate #186-001-626 and the plate portions of permits for all commercial motor vehicles and trailers issued to the appellant, and its affiliates as follows:

(i) CVOR #: 211-216-879: L & P Logistics & Delivery Services Inc.

(ii) CVOR #: 171-503-015: G & P Global Inc.

(iii) RIN: 198-223-379: Drivetech Services Inc.

(iv) RIN: 137-441-037: Paulbert Giraud

(v) RIN: 190-635-066: John Giraud

3The appellant appealed the Order to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 50(1) of the Act. The appellant’s Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) is signed by Paulbert Giraud. None of the affiliates named in the Order appealed to the Tribunal.

4The Registrar’s position, consistent with the March 17, 2025 Notice of Cancellation, is that the appellant’s CVOR safety record indicates unacceptable performance and gives the Registrar reason to believe that the appellant may not operate commercial vehicles safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations or other laws relating to highway safety under the Act based on the following:

a) the safety record of the appellant;

b) the safety record review dated March, 2025 showing an unacceptable violation rate with respect to convictions, inspections and collisions;

c) the Inspection Reports for the appellant

d) the Collision Reports of the appellant

e) a review of the Integrated Court Offences Network (“ICON”) has identified defaulted fines in the name of the appellant;

f) It is the opinion of the Registrar that an affiliation exists between the appellant and L & P Logistics & Delivery Services Inc., G & P Global Inc., Drivetech Services Inc., Paulbert Giraud and John Giraud;

g) The appellant failed to attend the show cause meeting with the Registrar on April 24, 2025 as set out in the Order.

5The appellant’s grounds for appeal as set out in its NOA can be summarized as firstly an explanation that Mr. Giraud did not attend the meeting on April 24, 2025 with the Registrar because he did not realize is was a Microsoft meeting because he “never had these kind of meetings before”, and secondly a request by the appellant that the “decision” be reversed because Mr. Giraud need to “show to the deputy registrar what we’re doing to improve our safety record”.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: APPELLANT DID NOT ATTEND THE HEARING

6The appellant did not attend the hearing despite having been given notice of the hearing by the Tribunal. In accordance with 3.7.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules (“Rules”) I waited 30 minutes for the appellant to attend the hearing.

7After 30 minutes had passed and the appellant failed to attend the hearing, I asked for submissions from the respondent.

8The respondent submitted that Rule 3.7.1 of the Rules provides that after waiting 30 minutes after the scheduled start time of the hearing, the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party and/or make any order that it considers appropriate. In determining whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of a non-attending party, the Tribunal will consider the reasons for the non-attendance, if any. The respondent submitted that the Tribunal should proceed with the hearing in the absence of the appellant given that the appellant has not provided any reason for its non-attendance. Further the hearing has been scheduled for some time and written notice of the hearing was provided to the appellant at the email provided.

9After considering the submissions of the respondent, I ruled that the hearing will proceed in the absence of the appellant. The appellant did not provide any reason for its non-attendance at the hearing, or sought an adjournment of the hearing. The hearing has been scheduled for some weeks. Written notice of the hearing was given to the appellant by the Tribunal at the email it provided.

10Further, the appellant did not put forward any documents to the Tribunal for the hearing except the Notice of Appeal.

11The appellant also failed to attend the Tribunal’s June 9, 2025 Case Conference despite having been given notice of the Case Conference.

12As a result, I proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the appellant.

ISSUES

13The issues before me are:

(a) Is there reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the appellant or of a person related to the appellant, and any other relevant information, that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety?

(b) If the answer to the first issue is yes, what is the appropriate outcome?

RESULT

14For the reasons set out below, I confirm the Order and decline to modify the Order by the imposition of conditions or a lesser penalty.

LAW

15Under s. 16(2) of the Act, a person or corporation who operates a commercial vehicle in Ontario, including a tow truck, is required to hold a valid CVOR certificate issued by the Registrar.

16The Registrar is required to keep a safety record of all CVOR operators as set out in s. 205(1)(c)(iii.1) of the Act.

17Under s. 47(1) of the Act, the Registrar may, by order, suspend or cancel a CVOR certificate and the plate portion of a permit on various grounds including:

(d) misconduct for which the holder is responsible, directly or indirectly, related to the operation or driving of a vehicle;

(e) conviction of the holder for an offence referred to in subsection 210(1) or (2);

(f) the Registrar having reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the holder or of a person related to the holder, and any other information that the Registrar considers relevant, that the holder will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with this Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety; or

(g) any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e) or (f).

18Section 17(4) of the Act provides that an applicant is related to a person if at least one of the following is established:

(a) the applicant and the person are related individuals;

(b) either the applicant or the person is a partner of the other or was a partner of the other or they have or have had partners in common, or;

(c) either the applicant or the person, directly or indirectly, controls or controlled or manages or managed the other; or;

(d) the applicant and the person have or have had common officers or directors, or they are or have been controlled, directly or indirectly, by the same shareholders.

19Section 47(2.1) of the Act provides that s. 17(4) applies with necessary modifications for the purpose of determining who are related persons for the purposes of s. 47(1)(f).

20Section 47.1(1) of the Act provides that before suspending or cancelling a plate portion of a permit or a CVOR certificate under s. 47(1), the Registrar must provide notice of the proposed action.

21The decision of the Registrar may be appealed to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 50(1) of the Act.

22The Registrar has the burden of establishing the grounds for the Order.

23Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the Act, confirm, modify or set aside the Order.

24The Registrar and the Tribunal are required under s. 47(1)(f) to have regard to the safety record of the appellant when determining whether the appellant’s CVOR certificate ought to be cancelled. The Tribunal owes no deference to the Registrar in arriving at its decision.

25As set out by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Registrar, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. 751809 Ontario Inc. operating as Famous Flesh Gordon’s, 2013 ONCA 157, the determination required is whether the facts afford reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant will not operate in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

26The “reasonable grounds to believe” standard requires something more than mere suspicion but less than proof on a balance of probabilities. In other words, the Registrar does not have to establish that the conduct of the appellant makes it more likely than not that the appellant will not carry on business as required. The Registrar must only establish that there are reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act.

27The Supreme Court of Canada said in Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40, 2005 S.C.C. 40 at paragraph 114, reasonable grounds for belief must be more than mere suspicion, and will be found to exist where there is an objective basis for the belief which is based on compelling and credible information.

28There must also be a nexus between the past conduct in issue and the appellant’s ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely. See for example, CS v. Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, 2019 ONSC 1652 (Div.Ct.) at paragraph 32.

ANALYSIS

There is reason to believe that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety

29I find that there is reason to believe that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety for the reasons set out below.

30Kevin Kirkham, Senior Regulatory Compliance Administrator, Carrier Sanctions, Ministry of Transportation testified as the Registrar’s sole witness. No witness testified on behalf of the appellant.

Appellant’s Safety Record

31I find based on the testimony of Mr. Kirkham, which I accept, and the documents filed by the Registrar, that the appellant has a poor safety record.

32Mr. Kirkham testified that the appellant has a poor safety record and reviewed the appellant’s safety records from March, 2025 and from June, 2025 in detail.

33According to the testimony of Mr. Kirkham and the Carrier Safety Record Review as of March 6, 2025, the appellant’s overall violation rate was 110.76 %. A warning letter had been issued September 12, 2019 but resulted in no significant improvement. Mr. Kirkham testified that if a carrier is above 35%, this puts that carrier among the worst in Ontario, specifically in the worst 0.09% of CVOR holders in Ontario as of February, 2025, which is 59 CVOR holders out of some 60,384 CVOR holders province wide.

34Mr. Kirkham reviewed the CVOR records dated March 5, 2025 which shows an overall violation rate at that time of 110.76%, and June 9, 2025 which shows an overall violation rate of 109.59%, indicating no significant improvement and a continuing high violation rate. Mr. Kirkham’s detail review included detailed review of the results of inspections, collisions and convictions. The appellant had several out of service defects, violations of failing to obtain annual inspections, daily inspection, failure to keep its vehicles in proper mechanical order. Some of the mechanical violations included wheel hubs being too dry which Mr. Kirkham explained can lead to wheel separation and serious consequences. These violations could have been avoided by the appellant simply following the expected norms of mechanical maintenance.

35As explained by Mr. Kirkham, the appellant’s unwillingness or inability to improve its safety record, despite interventions by the Registrar, demonstrates a pattern of chronic non-compliance which warrants the Order given that the appellant has failed to comply with its safety responsibilities over and over.

36This is particularly concerning because other companies of which Mr. Giraud is a director also have poor safety records and have demonstrated a failure or unwillingness to comply with their obligations as CVOR holders.

37Mr. Kirkham’s testimony and records filed by the Registrar establish that oth the appellant and G & P Global Inc. were included as affiliates in an August 30, 2024 suspension and seizure order issued to L & P Logistics & Delivery Services Inc. Although this order was later rescinded against G & P Global Inc. when unpaid fines were paid in September, 2024, it appears that these companies in which Mr. Giraud was involved as a director engaged in similar conduct of non-payment of fines.

38Further, L & P Logistics & Delivery Serices Inc., was the subject of a previous Suspension/Seizure Order as a result of unpaid fines and an increasing overall violation rate. Following written submissions by Mr. Giraud as Director of L & P Logistics Delivery Services Inc., that carrier was issued a CVOR certificate in 2023 subject to written terms and conditions.

39The appellant’s safety record shows several interventions by the MTO prior to the Order, specifically a 2019 warning letter about its unacceptable safety record, an April 29, 2024 warning letter about accumulated defaulted fines of $10,559.89, a show cause meeting as the appellant’s safety record continued to be poor as of mid-June, 2025.

40Based on the testimony of Mr. Kirkham and the records filed by the Registrar, I find that there is reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the appellant, that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety.

41This is even more so when considered in conjunction with the safety record of the persons related to the appellant and other relevant information as set out below.

Appellant has defaulted on payment of fines

42I find that the Registrar has established that the appellant has defaulted on fines.

43The testimony of Mr. Kirkham and a review of the ICON records filed clearly shows that the appellant has several defaulted fines arising from various convictions.

44I accept the testimony of Mr. Kirkham that payment of fines imposed by the court after conviction are an important part of road safety and are a legal obligation of the appellant.

45Taken together with the safety record of the appellant, and the poor safety records and non-payment of fines by other persons related to the appellant through Mr. Giraud, I find that the non-payment of fines establishes that there is reason to believe that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety.

Appellant is related to L & P Logistics & Delivery Services Inc., G & P Global Inc., Drivetech Services Inc., Paulbert Giraud and John Giraud

46Section 17(4) of the Act provides that an applicant is related to a person if at least one of the following is established:

(b) either the applicant or the person is a partner of the other or was a partner of the other or they have or have had partners in common, or;

(c) either the applicant or the person, directly or indirectly, controls or controlled or manages or managed the other; or;

(d) the applicant and the person have or have had common officers or directors, or they are or have been controlled, directly or indirectly, by the same shareholders.

47I find that the appellant is related to L & P Logistics & Delivery Services Inc., G & P Global Inc., Drivetech Services Inc., Paulbert Giraud and John Giraud for the following reasons.

48The testimony of Mr. Kirkham and the records filed by the Registrar including the safety record review dated March 6, 2025, clearly establish that the three relevant corporations, the appellant, L & P Logistics & Delivery Services Inc., and G & P Global Inc. had a common corporate director within the meaning of s. 17(4)(d) of the Act – Mr. Giraud.

49Further, Mr. Giraud is the sole director of the appellant starting January, 2016 when it was incorporated and continuing until the latest corporate search date, May 13, 2025. The appellant used the registered business name “L & P Logistics“ from April, 2019 until April, 2024. Mr. Giraud is also the sole director of L & P Logistics & Delivery Services Inc. starting April 1, 2024 and continuing until the latest corporate search date, May 13, 2025.

50As director of these three corporations, Mr. Giraud is responsible to make sure that all three corporations operated safely and in accordance with the law and the evidence establishes that he failed to do so.

51Mr. Giraud also directed the activities of Drivetech Services Inc., the activities of himself and John Giraud according to the records reviewed by Mr. Kirkham in his testimony.

52I find that this gives reason to believe, having regard to the poor safety records of the persons related to the appellant, that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety.

53I also find that the facts set out above, including the appellant’s defaulted fines imposed by the court following convictions, and the appellant’s non-attendance at the show cause meeting, give reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the holder or of a person related to the holder, and “any other information that the Registrar considers relevant”, that the holder will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with this Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety within the meaning of s. 47(1)(f) of the Act.

Appellant Failed to Attend Show Cause Meeting

54It is clear from the testimony of Mr. Kirkham and the documents filed by the Registrar that the appellant failed to attend the show cause meeting with the Registrar on April 24, 2025 despite having been given notice that it had been re-scheduled from March 31, 2025 to April 24, 2025, and I so find.

55Although the appellant states in its NOA that Mr. Giraud did not attend the meeting on April 24, 2025 with the Registrar because he did not realize it was a Microsoft meeting because he “never had these kind of meetings before”, there is no evidence to support this submission.

56Mr. Kirkham testified that he works with the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles and attends show cause meetings and explained that notice of the show cause meeting was given to the appellant which failed to attend or send a representative.

57The Registrar’s Notice of Cancellation and Seizure dated March 17, 2025 sent to the appellant clearly set out that the appellant had the right to dispute the proposed cancellation and seizure, may meet with the Deputy Registrar on March 31, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. to show cause why a cancellation and seizure should not be issued, and indicated in bold lettering that this will be conducted through a Microsoft Teams meeting. The Notice of Cancellation and Seizure asks that the appellant Kevin Kirkham at his email address provided to confirm attendance at the meeting through this format and warned the appellant that “if you elect not to meet with the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles, the Cancellation and Seizure Order will be issued.”

58Despite this notice and written warning, Mr. Kirkham testified that the appellant failed to attend the show cause meeting or send a representative. I accept this evidence, there being no evidence to the contrary. The appellant admits it failed to attend in its NOA but suggests an explanation, unsupported by any evidence. As a result, it is clear from the evidence that the appellant failed to attend the show cause meeting.

Appellant Put Forward No Evidence at this Hearing

59Although in its NOA the appellant requested that the “decision” be reversed because Mr. Giraud need to “show to the deputy registrar what we’re doing to improve our safety record”, the appellant did not attend this hearing which was the appellant’s opportunity to present evidence about what it is “doing to improve our safety record.” This leaves me without any evidence to support the suggestion in its NOA that efforts are being made to improve its safety record.

What is the appropriate outcome?

60I find that the Order is the appropriate outcome and decline to modify the Order for the reasons set out above.

Conclusion

61The Registrar has established that there is reason to believe that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety based on the appellant’s poor safety record, the appellant’s defaulted fines identified on the filed ICON records, the poor safety records of the appellant’s related persons L & P Logistics & Delivery Services Inc., G & P Global Inc., Drivetech Services Inc., Paulbert Giraud and John Giraud which had poor safety records when operating, and the appellant’s failure to attend the show cause meeting to discuss its safety record and other related issues with the Registrar. Failure to pay fines imposed by the court after conviction and failure to attend the show cause meeting, when viewed together with the appellant’s poor safety record and the poor safety records of the related persons demonstrate that the appellant is either unwilling or unable to comply with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety.

62I have considered the appellant’s grounds set out in its NOA even though the appellant failed to attend the hearing and find there is insufficient evidence submitted to support its position.

ORDER

63For the reasons set out above, I confirm the Order.