Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17624/HTA

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 decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Satnam Singh Khangura

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

VICE-CHAIR:

Colin Osterberg

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

A. Choudhry, Paralegal

For the Respondent:

S. Saeed, Representative

HEARD by Teleconference: February 3, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Satnam Singh Khangura (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend their licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

2The Registrar alleges in its letter to the appellant dated September 2, 2025 that there is reason to believe that the appellant’s Class A licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during their Class A testing and/or training processes and that the appellant’s failure to abide by the regulatory framework that protects road safety in Ontario has undermined the confidence of the Ministry of Transportation in the appellant’s ability and intention to drive safely”.

3At the hearing, the Registrar alleged that the appellant’s Class A licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during the Class A testing process and that the Registrar’s ability to determine that the appellant’s was able to drive a commercial vehicle safely was therefore compromised.

4The appellant denied that he was involved in any dishonesty related to the testing process.

5At the conclusion of the hearing, I provided the parties with my decision and reasons orally and later issued a written decision. The appellant has requested written reasons for the decision and those reasons are as follows.

Preliminary Issues

1. Confidentiality Order

6At the commencement of the hearing, the Registrar requested that three pages, pages 6, 9, and 10, included in its submissions be treated as confidential and not disclosed to the public. Those pages consisted of two letters sent to the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) by the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) with details of an investigation that was ongoing. The Registrar advised that it had been asked by the OPP to keep the letters confidential and to only disclose them for the purposes of the hearing before the Tribunal. The Registrar argued that it was in the public interest to maintain confidentiality with respect to the letters because they relate to an investigation which was ongoing; the disclosure of the letters might compromise the investigation; the letters contain names of persons who are the subject of the ongoing investigation and who may be prejudiced should the letters be open to the public.

7The appellant had no objection to the issuance of a confidentiality order as requested by the Registrar.

8The Tribunal’s adjudicative records are generally open to the public, in accordance with the open court principle and s. 2(1) of the Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, S.O. 2019, c. 7, Sch. 60 (“TARA”). However, s. 2(2) of TARA provides that the Tribunal may order that all or part of an adjudicative record be treated as confidential and not disclosed to the public if the Tribunal determines that matters contained in the record are of such a nature that the public interest or the interest of a person served by avoiding disclosure outweighs the desirability of adhering to the principle that the record be available to the public.

9Similarly, the Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, held that the following requirements must be met before placing limits on the open court principle:

i. court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest

ii. the order sought is necessary to prevent this serious risk to the identified interest because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent this risk; and

iii. as a matter of proportionality, the benefits of the order outweigh its negative effect.

10I am satisfied that the release of the documents in question to the public poses a serious risk to the important public interest being the conduct of an ongoing criminal investigation and that a confidentiality order is necessary to prevent this serious risk. I find that the relief requested is proportional to the negative impact of the order on court openness.

11I therefore ordered that Pages 6, 9, and 10 of the Respondent’s Submissions filed at the hearing shall be treated as confidential and not disclosed to the public.

ISSUES

12The issue in this appeal is whether the Registrar has established sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

RESULT

13Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence and I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence

ANALYSIS

14The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1)(b) and (g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any sufficient reason not referred to in clauses 47(1)(d), 47(1)(e) or 47(1)(f) of the Act.

15One of the fundamental purposes of the Act as described in s. 31, is to ensure the public’s safety on highways. See British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), 1999 CanLII 646 (SCC) at para 26-28; Mitanidis v Ontario (Transportation), 2024 ONSC 5879; Adam Giffen v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation), 2013 ONSC 7461 at para. 33.

16Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

17The appellant did not dispute that ensuring the public’s safety on the highways is one of the fundamental purposes of the Act.

18The evidence presented at the hearing establishes the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during the Class A testing and/or training processes. In particular, I am satisfied that the testing process was tainted by a payment made by someone to the appellant’s examiner in exchange for a favourable test result.

19Registrar alleges that it received information from the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) that the appellant’s licence was obtained as a result of a fraud committed during the licence testing process and in particular that the MTO received information from the OPP that the examiner who conducted the testing of the appellant had received payment in exchange for a favourable road test. The Registrar does not allege that the appellant participated in this transaction or that he knew anything about it. But the Registrar does allege that the testing process is one of the primary methods by which the Registrar can be satisfied that the appellant will drive a motor vehicle safely and that the appellant’s testing process cannot provide that assurance because of the impugned transaction.

20The evidence comes from two OPP letters to the Registrar:

i. A letter dated August 19, 2025, states that the OPP has reasonable grounds to believe that approximately 250 individuals may have fraudulently obtained their Class A commercial driver’s licence including the appellant;

ii. A letter dated October 3, 2025, states that the OPP was investigating a bribery scheme in which certain commercial driver examiners were accepting cash payments in exchange for providing passing results to applicants during their commercial driver’s licence road examinations. The letter states that after an extensive examination the OPP has reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant fraudulently obtained their Class A licence in that way. Evidence is described, including that the appellant’s driver’s licence was sent to a complicit driver’s examiner which was the method of communication used by the participants in the bribery scheme to facilitate the sharing of applicant information in order to ensure the applicants that were to benefit from the bribery scheme were examined by complicit examiners and that a complicit examiner did the appellant’s road test.

21The appellant did not dispute the facts that are contained in the OPP letters but denies that he had any involvement in the payments or the transaction. He denied that the Registrar’s evidence establishes that the testing that was done was done improperly or that the appellant’s road test was not sufficient to establish his ability to drive safely.

22I find that the evidence presented at the hearing establishes the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during the Class A testing on a balance of probabilities. In particular, I am satisfied that the testing process was tainted by a payment made by someone to the appellant’s examiner in exchange for a favourable test result. That does not mean that the Appellant participated in that transaction or even that he did not perform well enough on the test to have passed absent the payment.

23The evidence presented in the letters from the OPP satisfy me that the road test undertaken by the appellant was tainted by a bribery scheme and was inadequate to provide satisfactory evidence of the appellant’s ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely. The facts set out by the OPP in their letters was uncontradicted by any other evidence at the hearing and sets out that the driver examiner who was taking bribes for providing favourable test results was sent the appellant’s driver’s licence and was the appellant’s examiner for the road test. This was the system used by the persons complicit in the bribery scheme and there was no other explanation offered for this having occurred involving the appellant.

24The appellant presented no explanation as to why his driver’s licence would have been sent to a complicit driver’s examiner who was then assigned to conduct his road test and I find that the evidence presented at the hearing this is sufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s road test was tainted by the bribery scheme.

25The fact that training was completed and that there is no allegation of unsafe driving after the licence was obtained does not make up for the fact that no satisfactory testing was done. In my view testing is an important part of ensuring that drivers are safe and is the only part of the process that is in the objective control of the MTO.

26With respect to the appellant’s position that there is no evidence that the appellant was involved in the improper transaction, in my view that is not the issue. The issue is whether the public safety on the highway has been adequately assured and I find that it has not been where the testing process is inadequate.

27In my view, an inadequate road test, which the Registrar is unable to rely on in order to carry out its mandate to ensure the safety of the public on the highway, is sufficient reason to suspend a licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act. I find that the road test which the appellant underwent in order to obtain his Class A licence was inadequate and that the Registrar is unable to rely on it to ensure that he is able to drive a commercial vehicle safely on the highway.

Conclusion

28I find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

ORDER

29For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.