Gozeal Transportation Inc. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2026 CanLII 10346

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17172/CVOR

An appeal from a Cancellation and Seizure Order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to s. 47 and s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

Between:

Gozeal Transportation Inc.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Bernard Trottier

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Ravendra Gnanapragasam, Representative

For the Respondent: Patrick Moore, Counsel

Court Reporter: Charlotte St. Croix, Veritext Legal Solutions

Heard by videoconference: January 22, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Gozeal Transportation Inc. (the “appellant”) appeals to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) under s. 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from a Cancellation and Seizure Order, dated May 15, 2025 (the “Order”) of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) issued pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Act, to cancel the Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration (“CVOR”) certificate and vehicle registrations, and to seize the plate portion of any permits and number plates registered for all commercial motor vehicles and trailers registered in the name of the appellant. Ravendra Gnanapragasam is the owner and operator of the appellant.

2The Registrar alleges 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 any other laws relating to highway safety. The Registrar bears the onus of convincing the Tribunal that there is reason for such belief.

3The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on May 30, 2025.

ISSUES

4The issues in dispute are as follows:

1. Is there reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the appellant and any other relevant information, 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?

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

RESULT

5For the reasons that follow, I find:

1. 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; and,

2. Having considered the parties’ submissions, this is not an appropriate case for conditions. I therefore confirm the Registrar’s Order to cancel the appellant’s CVOR certificate and vehicle registrations and to seize the plate portion of permits and number plates for all commercial motor vehicles registered in its name.

ANALYSIS

The Law and the Onus

6Under s. 47(1) of the Act, the Registrar may, by order, suspend or cancel a CVOR certificate and the plate portion of a permit if the Registrar has 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 the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety.

7The Registrar and the Tribunal are required, under s. 47(1)(f), to regard the safety record of the appellant when determining whether the appellant’s CVOR certificate ought to be cancelled.

8The components of a CVOR certificate holder’s safety record are defined in sections 5, 6 and 7 of O. Reg. 424/97: Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators' Information (the “Regulation”). The mechanism for monitoring the safety performance of CVOR certificate holders is set out in sections 8 to 16 of the Regulation.

9Following a hearing, s. 50(2) of the Act allows the Tribunal to confirm, modify or set aside the decision of the Registrar. The Tribunal owes no deference to the Registrar in arriving at its decision.

10The burden of proof rests with the Registrar to demonstrate there is reason to believe that the holder will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely. The standard of “reasonable grounds for belief” was set out by the Court of Appeal in Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario) v. 751809 Ontario Inc. (Famous Flesh Gordon's), 2013 ONCA 157. The standard requires more than mere suspicion, but less than proof on a balance of probabilities. In other words, the Registrar does not have to show that the conduct of the appellant makes it more likely than not that they will carry on business unsafely. The Registrar need only show that there are reasonable grounds for belief that they will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, where there is an objective basis for the belief which is based on compelling and credible information.

11Further, the onus requires that there be a nexus between the past conduct at issue and the appellant’s ability to operate within the requirements of their licence, in this case a licence to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely: see Nagy v. Registrar, Real Estate Business Brokers Act, 2012 ONSC 325 at paras. 58-61 (Div. Ct.); and C.S. v. Registrar, Real Estate Business Brokers Act, 2019 ONSC 1652 at para. 32 (Div. Ct.)).

The appellant has not operated its fleet safely compared to other carriers

12Kevin Kirkham, Senior Regulatory Compliance Administrator with the Ministry of Ontario (“MTO”) testified on CVOR policies and procedures for data collection, operator rating and registration cancellation.

13Kirkham testified that each operator is assigned a maximum threshold violation rate (“VR”) based on an operator’s collision, convictions and inspections over a 24-month sliding period, and pro-rated based on the number of vehicles and drivers in the operator’s fleet and the number of kilometres travelled. The CVOR system calculates an operator’s overall performance in an overall violation rate (“OVR”) by combining the performance values for three factors – collisions, convictions and inspections – based on a weighting of 40%, 40% and 20% respectively. When an operator’s OVR exceeds 35%, the Registrar will issue a warning letter advising the operator that it needs to take corrective action. When the OVR reaches 50%, a facility audit may take place. At 85%, there may be an interview, and at 100% the Registrar will consider sanctions ranging from suspension to cancellation.

14The Registrar directed me to the OVR statistics of CVOR certificate holders in Ontario, comprised of 61,773 registered carriers as of February 2025, summarized in the following table.

OVR Range	Number of CVOR Holders	Percentage of Total
0 ≤ 35%	60,384	97.75%
35 ≤ 50%	714	1.15%
50 ≤ 70%	333	0.53%
70 ≤ 85%	83	0.13%
85 ≤ 100%	55	0.08%
> 100%	59	0.09%

15Kirkham testified that the Registrar issued the Notice of Cancellation and Seizure (the “Notice”) to the appellant on March 21, 2025, because the appellant had an OVR of 87.76%, based on the 2-year period from September 11, 2022 to September 10, 2024, comprised of the following VR components (percent of each VR threshold):

1. Collisions: 87.02%
2. Convictions: 66.59%
3. Inspections: 131.58%

16Kirkham testified that the Registrar took notice because all three VRs were problematic, and that the inspection violation rate of 131.58% was considered extremely high. The Notice identified that, from September 11, 2022 to September 10, 2024, the appellant had 4 pointable collisions, 13 pointable convictions and 29 pointable inspection violations. In the Notice, the appellant was invited to participate in a show-cause meeting on April 4, 2025, to discuss what actions would be, or had been, taken to address the concerns identified in the appellant’s safety record.

17The Registrar directed me to the appellant’s CVOR abstracts for January 14, 2025 and June 30, 2025. The Registrar argues that, despite the Notice and the show-cause meeting, the appellant’s collision, conviction, inspection and overall violation rates continued to worsen, as indicated in the following table:

Date of Abstract	January 14, 2025	June 30, 2025
24-month period	2022-12-16 to 2024-12-15	2023-06-01 to 2025-05-31
Collision VR	87.00%	90.36%
Conviction VR	86.16%	181.50%
Inspection VR	145.37%	169.00%
Overall VR	98.34%	142.54%

18The Registrar directed me to the collision reports for the appellant’s drivers operating under his CVOR certificate for the monitoring period of the Notice, as well as inspection reports up to May 29, 2025. The collision reports provide details on the time and place of each incident, the vehicle(s), the driver(s), and the particulars of the collision as captured by police. Kirkham testified that each collision is evaluated by the Registrar with points assigned according to the guideline in the MTO’s CVOR Safety Manual – July 2019 (the “Manual”).

19The Registrar directed me, also, to the inspection reports that provide details on the time and place of each vehicle inspection, the vehicles (tractors and trailers), the commodity being shipped, and the defect codes, and whether the vehicle was taken out-of-service (“OOS”) where it is prohibited from operating on a highway until the condition is repaired. As with collisions, the Registrar assigns points for each inspection violation according to the guidelines in the Manual. The Registrar directed me, further, to the CVOR abstract of June 30, 2025, that indicated that the appellant had an OOS rate of 68.09% for all inspections in the 24-month period from June 1, 2023 to May 31, 2025, meaning the inspected vehicles were taken off the road more the two-thirds of the time.

20The Registrar argues that it is very concerning that the appellant’s OVR rating was above 87% when the Notice was sent, and then the appellant’s OVR became progressively worse, to above 142% by June 30, 2025. The Registrar argues, further, that the OOS rate of 68.09% presented a threat to highway safety.

21Gnanapragasam testified that many of his company’s inspection violations arose because of the nature of his core business, hauling raw logs in northern Ontario, where there are usually no weigh scales. The appellant argued that this inflates its apparent violation rates, and that this should be considered in the hearing.

22I find the appellant’s argument, that its safety violations are exaggerated because of the location and commodities for its core business, not compelling, based on the statistics and detailed collision and inspection reports presented by the Registrar at the hearing. I find that the Registrar has provided evidence of safety violations, including fundamental driver errors and poor maintenance of mechanical components, that demonstrate that the appellant’s safety record was unsafe compared to those of other carriers.

23I find that that the Registrar has demonstrated the appellant’s safety record is in the bottom 0.2% of all Ontario CVOR certificate holders from September 11, 2022 to September 10, 2024, and that the appellant’s safety record became progressively worse from June 1, 2023 to June 30, 2025.

24Based on the evidence before me, I find that the Registrar has demonstrated that the appellant has not operated its commercial motor vehicle fleet safely compared to other carriers, and that the appellant’s safety record has worsened over time.

The appellant has not demonstrated steps to ameliorate its safety record

25The appellant and representatives of the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles met for the show-cause meeting on April 4, 2025. The purpose of the meeting was to provide the appellant the opportunity to show cause why the Notice of Cancellation and Seizure of March 21, 2025 should not be carried out. The Deputy Registrar requested 10 documents, to be provided by May 12, 2025, as follows:

1. List of current drivers and those employed within the last 2 years;
2. Truck and trailer list, including VIN and plate numbers;
3. Names of office staff, with driver’s licence numbers;
4. Company insurance policies;
5. Company policies regarding drivers, vehicle maintenance and handling of on-road incidents;
6. An action plan to address noted safety concerns, describing what action will be taken, who will undertake the actions, expected outcomes and timelines;
7. Copy of the appellant’s owner/operator oversize permit(s);
8. CVOR updates (subsidiaries, officers, vehicles, kilometric travel);
9. Proof of payment of outstanding fines (by April 29, 2025); and
10. Proof of completion of the CVOR learning modules.

26Kirkham testified that the Deputy Registrar found that the appellant was deficient in fulfilling the request for documents. On May 15, 2025, the Deputy Registrar issued a Cancellation and Seizure Order, indicating that it did not receive 8 of the 10 requested documents.

27On May 28, 2025, the Deputy Registrar received a request from an agent of the appellant to submit the requested documents. Kirkham testified that he indicated to the agent, on that same day, that the deadline had passed, and that the Cancellation and Seizure Order had been carried out.

28On May 29, 2025, the Deputy Registrar received submissions from the appellant on the requested documents, despite the May 12, 2025 deadline. The Registrar submitted these documents into evidence as part of its evidence brief. Kirkham testified that the late-submitted documents were considered deficient, for the following reasons:

1. In the appellant’s Disciplinary Policy and Corrective Action document, under “Corrective Measures”, the policy stated that a “verbal warning will be issued to a driver who is involved in three preventable accidents” in 12 months. Kirkham testified that this approach does not meet the Registrar’s criteria for progressive discipline, and that a probationary measure (more than a verbal warning) would normally be placed on any driver involved in one preventable accident, i.e., an accident involving impropriety.
2. In the appellant’s Preventive Maintenance Policy Program document, the appellant indicates that tractors will undergo preventive maintenance every 4 months. In a separate Fleet Safety Manual for Motor Fleet document, the appellant indicates that all tractors will receive full maintenance every 80,000 km or 3 months. Kirkham testified that it is unclear which policy is in effect, and whether the appellant intends to adhere to either one.
3. Kirkham testified that the appellant had many issues regarding inspection violations for weights and dimensions with respect to its primary commodity, raw logs. Kirkland testified that the appellant’s Fleet Safety Manual appears very generic and contains no mention of load security measures specific to hauling logs. Similarly, Kirkham testified that the “Driver Qualification Standard for Current Drivers” section of the Fleet Safety Manual contains no mention of attention to load security.
4. The Registrar directed me the Action Plan document submitted by the appellant, which consisted of four lines in a table. Kirkham testified that this document was vague and addressed only record-keeping, without any indication of specific safety measures, responsibilities and timelines.
5. Kirkham testified that he found that, overall, the appellant’s policy documents and action plan very generic and did not address the specific issues raised by the Deputy Registrar in the Notice. He testified that, after reviewing the late-filed documents, the Deputy Registrar did not change its view that the appellant would be unable to alleviate its concerns.

29The Registrar argues that it took steps to allow the appellant the opportunity to demonstrate it could improve its safety record, but that the documents submitted by the appellant do not changes its position that the Order should be confirmed.

30At the hearing, the appellant made no submissions on the documents it provided or its actions following the show-cause meeting.

31Based on the evidence before me, I find that the appellant has not taken appropriate corrective measures to address the concerns raised by the Deputy Registrar, in that its disciplinary, preventive maintenance, fleet safety and action plan documents do not reflect a bona fide intention to improve its safety record.

Is there reason to believe that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely?

32Based on the evidence before me, I find that the Registrar has established that there is reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of 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.

What is the appropriate outcome?

33Gnanapragasam testified that he was not driving currently, and that he needed one truck for 6 months, otherwise he would lose his contracts with his customers. The appellant argued that the Tribunal should show leniency to let him demonstrate that he could operate a commercial vehicle safely.

34I am not bound to accept the outcome proposed by the Registrar. I find, however, that it is appropriate in the circumstances. The appellant has not established that other sanctions would sufficiently protect public safety or that the appellant can be trusted to comply with conditions placed on registration. I find that a reduction in the size of the fleet to one tractor, as proposed by the appellant, will not adequately protect highway safety, as there were only six vehicles involved while the safety issues arose.

35The Registrar provided insights, information and recommendations to the appellant at the show-cause meeting, regarding how to provide for the safe management of its operations. This would have assisted the appellant in its ability to maintain its CVOR certifications. Instead, I find there is little evidence before me that the appellant made any improvements to its ability to operate safely, or that it will in the future.

36For these reasons, I decline to modify the Order.

CONCLUSION

37I find that the Registrar has established that there is reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of 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.

38I find that the Registrar has demonstrated that modifying the Order, by applying conditions, would adequately protect highway safety.

ORDER

39Pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Act, the Tribunal confirms the Registrar’s order to cancel Gozeal Transportation Inc.’s CVOR and vehicle registrations and to seize the plate portion of any permits and number plates registered for all commercial motor vehicles and trailers registered in the name of the company.