Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16739/CVOR

In the matter of an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from a Refusal to Issue a Commercial Motor Vehicle Operator’s Registration (CVOR) Certificate pursuant to section 17 of the Act.

Between:

1001057186 Ontario Inc. o/a M.A. Roadside

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Caley Howard

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Justin Brodie Timms-Fryer, Paralegal

For the Respondent: Patrick Moore, Counsel

Heard by Videoconference: June 11-13, 2025 and July 9, 2025

OVERVIEW

11001057186 Ontario Inc. o/a M.A. Roadside (the “appellant”) appeals the Refusal to Issue a Commercial Motor Vehicle Operator’s Registration (CVOR) Certificate (the “refusal”), issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) under s. 17 of the Highway Traffic Act (the “Act”) on February 12, 2025. The basis for the refusal was the appellant’s affiliation with 2699718 Ontario Inc. o/a Legacy Towing (“Legacy Towing”), which had its CVOR cancelled pursuant to the CVOR cancellation and seizure order dated June 26, 2024 by the respondent.

2On the first day of the hearing, the appellant sought an adjournment due to a medical emergency experienced by his legal representative. I ordered a half-day adjournment to accommodate the applicant’s replacement representative. After the half-day adjournment, the hearing proceeded with the participation of the applicant’s replacement representative. However, as a result of the adjournment, the hearing was not completed during the scheduled hearing days of June 11 to 13, 2025. I ordered a resumption of the hearing, which occurred on July 9, 2025.

ISSUES

3The issues in dispute are:

i. Is the appellant related to a company whose CVOR certificate was cancelled?

ii. If the answer to the first issue is yes, what is the appropriate outcome?

4On the first day of the hearing, I reviewed the issues in dispute with the parties. The respondent made it clear that the refusal was based on s. 17(3)(a) of the Act, the appellant’s alleged affiliation with a company whose CVOR certificate was cancelled. The parties made their submissions based on this clarification. I made the necessary changes to the issues in dispute from those set out in the Case Conference Report and Order.

RESULT

5I find that the appellant is related to Legacy Towing, which had its CVOR certificate cancelled. I confirm the respondent’s refusal to issue a CVOR certificate to the appellant.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

6On the first day of the hearing, the appellant sought an order for an adjournment to enable the respondent to replace its counsel on the basis that the respondent’s counsel had a conflict of interest in this matter. The alleged conflict of interest was based on the appellant’s allegation that the respondent’s counsel had recommended to Mr. Mohammad Ali, the director of the appellant and who was also the director of Legacy Towing, that Mr. Ali should incorporate a new company in order to distance himself from certain people associated with Legacy Towing. Legacy Towing, which had appealed the respondent’s order cancelling its CVOR certificate, later withdrew its appeal. The appellant alleged that the respondent, in its opening submissions, claimed not to know why Legacy Towing withdrew its appeal. The appellant submitted that the respondent’s comments created a conflict of interest for the respondent’s counsel and that it was not appropriate for respondent’s counsel to represent the respondent at the hearing.

7The respondent denied that its counsel had a conflict of interest. The respondent’s counsel denied making such a statement in its opening and denied that the issue of why Legacy Towing withdrew its appeal was relevant to the issues in front of me at this hearing. The respondent further denied that it or its counsel had made the alleged recommendations to Mr. Ali in the previous appeal by Legacy Towing. The respondent submitted that it was entitled to its choice of legal representative.

8The applicant submitted that it needed to obtain the transcript of the opening statements in order to have the evidence it needed to support its motion.

9I found that even if the respondent’s counsel had made both the alleged recommendation and the alleged statement in its opening submissions, which it denied that the appellant had not demonstrated that this would create a conflict of interest for the respondent’s counsel. I found that the issue of why Legacy Towing withdrew a separate appeal before the Tribunal under Tribunal file number 16124/CVOR is not relevant to the issues currently before me. In addition, the respondent was a party to Legacy Towing’s appeal, therefore, the fact that the same counsel represents the respondent in this appeal does not make the respondent privy to any information that it would not otherwise be entitled to.

10I denied the appellant’s motion.

ANALYSIS

A. The appellant is related to Legacy Towing

11I find that the appellant is related to Legacy Towing, which had its CVOR certificate cancelled on June 26, 2024.

12Section 17(3)(a) of the Act provides that the respondent may refuse to issue a CVOR certificate to an applicant who is related to a person whose CVOR certificate has been cancelled.

13Pursuant to s. 17(4)(d) of the Act, the applicant and the person are related if the applicant and the person have, or have had, common officers or directors.

14The respondent submits that the appellant is related to Legacy Towing because Mr. Ali is the sole corporate officer of the appellant, which was incorporated on November 7, 2024. Mr. Ali was also a corporate officer of Legacy Towing beginning on August 1, 2023 and continuing until at least February 24, 2025. In support of this submission, the respondent relies on the corporate profile reports of Legacy Towing as of July 31, 2023, May 23, 2024 and February 24, 2025, and the corporate profile report of the appellant as of February 24, 2025. The respondent also relies on the CVOR Cancellation and Seizure Order issued to Legacy Towing, dated June 26, 2024, a Notice of Appeal filed by Legacy Towing, dated July 30, 2024, and a Notice of Withdrawal filed by Legacy Towing, dated October 29, 2024.

15Mr. Ali testified at the hearing on behalf of the appellant. He acknowledged that he purchased Legacy Towing from Tareq Jarrar a few days prior to August 1, 2023, at which point he became the corporate officer of Legacy Towing. He also acknowledged that he is the sole corporate officer of the appellant, and there is no dispute in this regard.

16Based on the appellant’s acknowledgment, which is supported by the corporate profile reports of Legacy Towing and the appellant, I find that Mr. Ali is, or has been, a corporate officer of both Legacy Towing and the appellant. As a result, I find that, pursuant to s. 17(4)(d) of the Act, that the appellant and Legacy Towing are related for the purposes of s. 17(3) of the Act.

17Further, I find that a CVOR Cancellation and Seizure Order, dated June 26, 2024, was issued to Legacy Towing by the respondent.

18Therefore, I find that the appellant is related to a person whose CVOR certificate was cancelled, as per s. 17(3)(a) of the Act.

The refusal should be confirmed

19The language of s. 17(3)(a) specifies that the Registrar “may” refuse to issue a certificate, which indicates that the legislation confers discretion on the Registrar. In this case, the respondent exercised its discretion by issuing the refusal to the appellant.

20Section 50(2) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the decision of the Registrar.

21I am therefore not bound to confirm the refusal issued by the respondent. However, for the reasons set out below, I find that the refusal is the appropriate outcome.

a) Anti-avoidance provisions of the Act related to CVOR certificates

22Daniel Armstrong, Senior Regulatory Compliance Administrator for the Ministry of Transportation, testified at the hearing for the respondent. He testified about the importance of the anti-avoidance provisions and how without these provisions, it would be impossible to enforce the commercial motor vehicle provisions of the Act.

23The anti-avoidance provisions in s. 17(3) of the Act allow the respondent to refuse to grant a CVOR certificate to an applicant who is related to a person whose CVOR certificate has been revoked, suspended, or who is found to have a problematic safety record. I find that these provisions play a key role in protecting the public safety from commercial vehicle operators with poor safety records. Section 17(3) of the Act is used to prevent companies with poor safety records, including those who have had their CVOR certificate cancelled, from sidestepping enforcement of the Act simply by incorporating a new company and obtaining a new CVOR certificate based on the new company’s spotless safety record.

b) Concerns regarding the appellant’s affiliation with Legacy Towing

24The respondent submits that the appellant was complicit in a plan to enable Ahmad Jarrar, the brother of Tareq Jarrar, to continue to operate a towing business after his own companies’ CVOR certificates had been cancelled. It relies on the testimony of Mr. Armstrong, the testimony of Glen Dodwell, investigator for the Ministry of Transportation’s towing and vehicle storage oversight office, and various documents, including: the Tribunal decision dated January 25, 2022 in Tribunal file number 13537/CVOR, which related to various companies owned by Ahmed Jarrar; notes from the show cause meeting held by the respondent with Mr. Ali in respect of Legacy Towing’s CVOR certificate; written submissions provided by Mr. Ali to the respondent after the show cause meeting; a fleet limitation order issued to Legacy Towing, dated December 7, 2021; a printout from the respondent’s Integrated Court Offences Network (ICON) program, listing offences for Tareq Jarrar; the corporate records for Tire Route Inc. (“Tire Route”) and 2782141 Ontario Inc. o/a GTA Cars (“GTA Cars”); the CVOR abstract of Legacy Towing; Service Ontario records relating to vehicles plated to Legacy Towing; .

25Mr. Ali testified that he incorporated the appellant in order to distance himself from Ahmad Jarrar and the Jarrar family, not to enable Ahmad Jarrar to circumvent the enforcement provisions of the Act and continue to operate a tow company. He further testified that he was not aware of his involvement in any plans the Jarrars had to circumvent the Act. The appellant submits that Mr. Ali was duped into purchasing Legacy Towing and that at the time he purchased it, he was unaware of its problematic safety record.

26Mr. Armstrong testified that Ahmad Jarrar owned and operated several companies that were subject to CVOR cancellation and seizure orders in 2021. This testimony was corroborated by the Tribunal decision dated January 25, 2022 in Tribunal file number 13537/CVOR determining the related appeal. Mr. Armstrong testified that Ahmad Jarrar is the brother of Tareq Jarrar, which was corroborated by Mr. Ali’s written submissions provided after the show cause meeting Mr. Armstrong testified that when the companies owned by Ahmad Jarrar were cancelled, Legacy Towing was investigated by the respondent due to its possible relationship to Ahmad Jarrar. Instead of cancelling Legacy Towing’s CVOR certificate, the respondent issued a one-year fleet limitation order and prohibited Legacy Towing from having any business dealings with Ahmad Jarrar or any corporation owned by Ahmad Jarrar. This testimony was corroborated by the December 7, 2021 fleet limitation order issued to Legacy Towing.

27The respondent submits that despite the prohibition, Ahmad Jarrar used Legacy Towing to continue to operate his towing business. Mr. Armstrong testified to several connections between Ahmad Jarrar, and his corporations, and Legacy Towing after 2021. For the reasons set out below, I find as follows: Legacy Towing operated out of a property owned by Ahmad Jarrar’s corporation; Ahmad Jarrar worked as a tow driver for Legacy Towing; the tow trucks operated by Legacy Towing were owned by Ahmad Jarrar’s corporation; Ahmad Jarrar performed many purchase and sale and registration transactions with Service Ontario on behalf of Legacy Towing, both before and after the sale of Legacy Towing to Mr. Ali; the mother of Ahmad Jarrar and Tareq Jarrar, Domar Jallad, was added as a director of Legacy Towing for several months after it was purchased by Mr. Ali.

28First, I find one of Ahmad Jarrar’s corporations, Tire Route owned the location out of which Legacy Towing operated. The corporate records of Tire Route show that Ahmad Jarrar was the director of Tire Route until at least September 16, 2024. Mr. Dodwell testified that he observed the address of 510 Cannon Street on May 15, 2024. He testified that the only signage at the location was for a business called Tire Route. He further testified that several tow trucks observed at the location were registered GTA Cars. The corporate records of GTA Cars show that Ahmad Jarrar is the director of the corporation. The CVOR abstract of Legacy Towing shows that its address was 510 Cannon Street. Mr. Dodwell testified that the location contains a compound for parking tow trucks and storing towed vehicles. A copy of a lease agreement showed that Legacy Towing leased the property at 510 Cannon Street from Tire Route from at least December 2023. Mr. Ali testified that when he purchased Legacy Towing, it had an existing lease for the property at 510 Cannon Street.

29Second, I find that Ahmad Jarrar worked as a tow driver for Legacy Towing. Mr. Dodwell testified about a complaint made to the respondent by Kristen Cleary about Legacy Towing. The tow driver involved in that complaint, according to Ms. Cleary’s report, was Ahmad Jarrar. Ms. Cleary’s complaint involved being unable to access or retrieve her vehicle after it was towed. Ms. Cleary’s accident took place on June 19, 2024. Mr. Ali testified that Ahmad Jarrar worked as a tow driver for Legacy Towing at the time that Mr. Ali purchased Legacy Towing and continued to work for Legacy Towing until Mr. Ali learned that the respondent had concerns about Ahmad Jarrar.

30Third, I find that throughout 2023 and into 2024, Legacy Towing leased a fleet of tow trucks owned by one of Ahmad Jarrar’s corporations. The corporate records of 2782141 Ontario Inc. (“GTA Cars”) show that Ahmad Jarrar is the director of the corporation, which has registered the active business names 401 Roadside, Halton Auto Repair and GTA Cars. Various lease agreements show that Legacy Towing leased its tow trucks from GTA Cars. Service Ontario records show that various vehicles were purchased by GTA Cars and plated to Legacy Towing. Some of these transactions were completed by Ahmad Jarrar and some were completed by Mr. Ali. I find that one transaction dated March 27, 2023 was completed by Mr. Ali on behalf of GTA Cars and Legacy Towing. I note that this was several months prior to Mr. Ali’s purchase of Legacy Towing. Some of these transactions, dated December 7, 2023, December 28, 2023, January 22, 2024 and April 18, 2024, were completed by Ahmad Jarrar on behalf of GTA Cars and Legacy Towing. These transactions all occurred several months after Mr. Ali’s purchase of Legacy Towing.

31Mr. Armstrong testified that, as of January 2024, tow operators and tow drivers were required to obtain licences under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 26, Sched. 3 (“TSSEA”). Mr. Armstrong testified that Tareq Jarrar had a criminal conviction that would have prevented Legacy Towing from obtaining a tow operator certificate under the TSSEA. The respondent referred me to a printout from the respondent’s Integrated Court Offences Network (ICON) program, which listed convictions for Tareq Jarrar. This document confirmed that Tareq Jarrar had been convicted, in December of 2022, of operating a motor vehicle while impaired under s. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. The respondent submits Tareq Jarrar sold Legacy Towing to Mr. Ali in August 2023 so that Legacy Towing could obtain a tow operator certificate and Ahmad Jarrar could continue to use it to operate his towing business.

32The corporate records for Legacy Towing show that Mr. Ali became the corporate director on August 1, 2023, and that, in March 2024, Domar Jallad was added as a director. Both Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Ali testified that Ms. Jallad is the mother of Ahmad and Tareq Jarrar. Mr. Ali testified that he did not know that Ms. Jallad was the mother of Ahmad Jarrar at the time she was added as a corporate director. He testified that he was dealing with Ms. Jallad to organize the lease of the tow trucks from GTA Cars and to arrange for their insurance. At the show cause hearing, Mr. Ali told the respondent that Ms. Jallad was a friend of his mother’s. He later denied that was true and claimed that he did not know any of the Jarrars before he purchased Legacy Towing. After the show cause hearing, Mr. Ali also advised the respondent, in writing, through his representative, that he had added Ms. Jallad as a director of the corporation because at her age she was able to get preferred insurance rates. Mr. Ali testified that after he purchased Legacy Towing he was the only person in charge of the business. However, I find that the addition of Ms. Jallad as a corporate director after Mr. Ali purchased Legacy Towing is a strong indication that the Jarrars continued to be involved in controlling the operation of Legacy Towing.

33I find that Mr. Ali’s testimony was inconsistent in several respects with information that he gave to the respondent at the May 30, 2024 show cause hearing regarding the respondent’s proposal to cancel the CVOR certificate of Legacy Towing. Mr. Ali testified at the hearing that he paid Tareq Jarrar $60,000 in cash two or three days prior to August 1, 2023. At the show cause hearing, Mr. Ali stated that he gave Tareq Jarrar a $20,000 deposit in August 2023 and the remaining $40,000 in October 2023. His evidence regarding how he financed the purchase price of $60,000 also varied between the show cause hearing and his testimony at the hearing. His answers to the question of when he first learned that Legacy Towing was for sale also varied. At the show cause hearing, he initially told the respondent that he learned the company was for sale in July 2023 and that he had no involvement with Legacy Towing before then. After he was confronted with the documentary evidence of his involvement in a March 2023 transaction at Service Ontario on behalf of Legacy Towing, he changed his answer to February 2023.

34I give less weight to the testimony of Mr. Ali given the inconsistencies between his testimony, information he gave to the respondent at the show cause meeting and information he provided to the respondent, through his representative, after the show cause meeting. I give more weight to the testimony of Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Dodwell, because it is consistent and supported by the documentary evidence.

35I find that the preponderance of documentary evidence, including the vehicle and property leases, the corporate records and the Service Ontario transaction records, demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, that Ahmad Jarrar controlled, or participated in the control of, Legacy Towing, both before and after its purchase by Mr. Ali on August 1, 2023.

36On January 18, 2024, the Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Issue a Tow Operator Certificate to Legacy Towing, citing the Director’s concerns that Ahmad Jarrar directly or indirectly controlled or managed Legacy Towing. I find that Mr. Ali was the corporate director of Legacy Towing at this time and that Mr. Ali knew that the Ministry of Transportation had concerns about Ahmad Jarrar’s involvement in the towing industry by this date, if not earlier.

37On May 13, 2024, the respondent issued a Notice of Cancellation and Seizure to Legacy Towing. On June 26, 2024, the respondent issued a cancellation and seizure order. Mr. Ali acknowledged that he appealed the cancellation initially but withdrew his appeal. Legacy Towing’s CVOR certificate was cancelled.

38Mr. Ali testified that he incorporated the appellant because he understood that Legacy Towing, due to its previous affiliation with Ahmad Jarrar, would never be eligible for a CVOR certificate. He testified that he thought that by incorporating a new company, he could distance himself from the Jarrars sufficiently enough to satisfy the respondent. Mr. Ali testified that he fired Ahmad Jarrar as soon as he understood that the respondent thought the association of Mr. Ali with Legacy Towing was problematic. He testified that he fired Ahmad Jarrar in about February 2023. I find that this is not supported by the Service Ontario documents, which indicate that Ahmad Jarrar continued to be authorized to obtain plates for Legacy Towing vehicles into April 2023. Further, Ms. Cleary’s complaint to the respondent demonstrates that Ahmad Jarrar was driving a Legacy Towing truck in June 2023.

39Based on my analysis of the above, I find that the respondent has demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that Legacy Towing was controlled, at least in part, by Ahmad Jarrar, both before and after Mr. Ali acquired Legacy Towing. I find that Mr. Ali was complicit in this use of Legacy Towing, which is demonstrated by his involvement with building the fleet prior to his purchase of Legacy Towing, in March 2023, by the addition of Ms. Jallad as a corporate director, and by the continued involvement of Ahmad Jarrar with the company even after the respondent had communicated its concerns to Mr. Ali.

B. Appropriate Outcome and alternate measures proposed by the appellant

40Given my findings above, I must now turn my mind to the appropriate outcome under the circumstances.

41The respondent submits that alternate measures are not appropriate in this case because: Legacy Towing’s CVOR certificate was cancelled which is the most serious sanction imposed by the respondent; Mr. Ali, the appellant’s director, was complicit in Ahmad Jarrar’s use and control of Legacy Towing; and because Mr. Ali was not upfront and honest with the respondent before, during and after the May 15, 2024 show cause hearing conducted by the respondent.

42The appellant submits that it was Ahmad Jarrar, along with Tareq Jarrar and Domar Jallad, who attempted to use Legacy Towing to continue operating after the loss of CVOR certificates by Ahmad Jarrar’s corporations. The appellant submits that Mr. Ali is a young man, who is only high school-educated and who was duped by the Jarrars into participating in their plan. The appellant submits that as soon as Mr. Ali understood what was happening, he did everything he could to distance himself from the Jarrars. The appellant submits that the public safety can adequately be protected by imposing conditions on its CVOR certificate. The appellant suggested that the issuance of its certificate could be conditional upon the appellant paying the outstanding fines of Legacy Towing and upon Mr. Ali’s promise not to knowingly associate with the Jarrars or any of their companies. The appellant further submits that refusing to issue a CVOR certificate to the appellant may jeopardize Mr. Ali’s future ability to be employed as a tow driver.

43Mr. Ali testified that if the Tribunal directs the Registrar to issue the appellant a CVOR certificate, he intends to obtain a contract with a company called Impact, to transport vehicles sold at online auction sites from the seller to the purchaser. He is currently working as a tow driver for a company that has such a contract. He further testified that he has learned from dealing with the Jarrars and will be much more diligent about researching employees in the future and ensuring that they take safety seriously.

44Mr. Ali testified about how he wants to help people and working as a tow driver is how he does that. He testified about how he often does work for free or for reduced rates in order to help others.

45I find that there is no evidentiary or legislative basis for the appellant’s submission that Mr. Ali’s continued employment is dependent on the appellant’s CVOR certificate being issued. Mr. Ali testified that he is currently working as a tow driver and has been since the cancellation of Legacy Towing’s CVOR certificate.

46I find that the alternate measures proposed by the appellant are not appropriate in this situation. I have found that Mr. Ali aided and participated in Ahmad Jarrar’s control of Legacy Towing, both before and after Mr. Ali purchased the company. I have also found that the answers Mr. Ali provided to the respondent before, during and after his show cause hearing, as well as his testimony at the hearing, contained many inconsistencies. Inconsistencies in the information reported to the respondent would make it difficult for the respondent to know if the appellant was complying with any conditions attached to a CVOR certificate, should I order one to be issued. Such an outcome is not consistent with the public safety nature of the Act.

47For these reasons, I am not persuaded that licencing, either with or without conditions, is an appropriate outcome.

Conclusion

48I find that the appellant is related to Legacy Towing, which had its CVOR cancelled. I find granting a CVOR certificate to the appellant, with or without conditions, is not an appropriate outcome in light of my findings. I confirm the respondent’s refusal to issue a CVOR certificate to the appellant.

ORDER

49Pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Act, I confirm the respondent’s refusal to issue a CVOR certificate to the appellant.