Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17899/MED

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 Minister of Transportation to suspend a licence pursuant to subsection 32(5) of the Act.

Between:

Barbara Mugabe

Appellant

And

Minister of Transportation

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Emily Morton, Member Dr. Kailey Minnings, Member

For the Appellant:

No one appearing at videoconference

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: BY VIDEOCONFERENCE January 20, 2026

1Barbara Mugabe (the “appellant”) has appealed the decision of the Minister of Transportation (the “Minister” or the “respondent”) to suspend her G class driver’s licence pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act).

2In the appellant’s Notice of Appeal, filed October 23, 2025, the appellant states she is appealing a decision dated April 1, 2025. The appellant did not attach a letter or other document from the respondent communicating the suspension and the reasons to her Notice of Appeal. On November 13, 2025, the appellant filed a Notice of Motion, now stating that the Minister’s decision to “suspend my licence and require a mental condition report is unreasonable.”

3The parties attended before the Tribunal for a case conference on December 3, 2025. At the case conference, the respondent asserted that the appellant’s driver’s licence had been suspended pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act, for failure to file a satisfactory medical report, and the Tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 50 of the Act.

4At the case conference, the Tribunal confirmed the date of December 17, 2025 for a videoconference hearing and identified the jurisdictional issue raised by the respondent as one of the issues in dispute to be decided at the hearing.

5On December 15, 2025, the Minister filed a Notice of Motion with supporting materials to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence was made under s. 32(b)(ii) of the Act.

6At the hearing on December 17, 2025, the appellant did not attend due to technological difficulties joining the teleconference. In a decision dated December 17, 2025, the panel adjourned the hearing and provided the Tribunal’s Notice of Intention to Dismiss (“NOID”) the appeal because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal advised the parties that it may dismiss an appeal without a hearing, pursuant to Rule 3.4(b) of the Licence Appeal Rules, 2003 (“Rules”). The NOID advised the parties the jurisdictional issue would be dealt with in writing. The appellant filed written submissions in response to the NOID.

7The Tribunal scheduled a resumption of the hearing on January 20, 2026 by videoconference. The jurisdictional issue identified in the NOID had not yet been decided by the Tribunal. The appellant did not attend the videoconference hearing, again citing technological difficulties. As the panel had before it the NOID, which the parties had been advised would be dealt with in writing, and in respect of which the appellant had made written submissions in response to the NOID, the panel did not make an order under Rule s. 3.7.1.

8For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for the reason raised in the NOID.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE: APPELLANT’S FAILURE TO ATTEND HEARING

9As noted, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing on December 17, 2025 as the applicant was unable to connect to the teleconference. The December 17, 2025 Tribunal decision, in addition to adjourning the hearing, issues the NOID for lack of jurisdiction. The December 17, 2025 decision addressed the format of the hearing on the issue of dismissal as follows:

Rule 3.4(b) of the [Rules] provides that the Tribunal may dismiss an appeal without a hearing when the appeal relates to matters that are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Rule 3.5 of the Rules sets out the procedure for dismissing an appeal without a hearing and requires that, before dismissing an appeal under this Rule, the Tribunal shall:

(a) Give the parties notice of its intention to dismiss;

(b) Provide the reasons for its intention to dismiss;

(c) Inform the parties of their right to make written submissions to the Tribunal within the time limits set out in the notice, which shall be at least 5 days; and

(d) Consider any written submissions provided.

10The Tribunal gave the parties a time frame that complied with Rule 3.5(c) to file written submissions with the Tribunal regarding the Tribunal’s intention to dismiss. The December 17, 2025 decision advised the parties that “[i]f submissions are received within the time frame indicated above, the Tribunal will consider the submissions and inform the parties in writing whether the appeal is to proceed or to be dismissed.”

11The appellant provided her written submissions on the NOID in accordance with the timetable set by the Tribunal. The respondent had filed submissions with respect to the dismissal issue in its motion, filed December 15, 2025. The Tribunal did not consider the motion in writing prior to January 20, 2026, the date set for the resumption of the hearing of the appeal.

12The videoconference hearing convened at 9:30 a.m. on January 20, 2026 and the respondent’s representative attended. The appellant did not join the videoconference. The Tribunal made inquiries but was not able to connect with the appellant, other than by email.

13It is not necessary to deal with the effect of the appellant’s non-attendance at the January 20, 2026 hearing. The panel ended the hearing and has proceeded to make a decision on the jurisdictional issue raised in the NOID, based on the written submissions of the parties.

14For the reasons that follow the Tribunal dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF TRIBUBAL JURISDICTION

Background and Parties’ Positions

15The appellant’s Notice of Appeal referred to a decision of April 1, 2025 to suspend her driver’s licence as the decision appealed from, but did not attach a copy of a decision communicated to her that was dated April 1, 2025. At the case conference on December 3, 2025, the respondent asserted that the appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended after receipt of an incident report on September 30, 2024 suggesting that the appellant may suffer from a mental health condition. In a letter dated October 7, 2024, the respondent sought information about the appellant’s medical condition, as well as a completed Medical Disorder form. At the case conference, the respondent advised that because it has not received the information requested in the October 7, 2024 letter, its position as that the appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act and that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

16In the Case Conference Report and Order that followed the case conference of December 3, 2025, the Tribunal identified the issues in dispute at a hearing to include whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and set the hearing date for December 17, 2025.

17In its motion to dismiss, the respondent filed a copy of and relied on the Notice of Suspension of Driver’s Licence dated November 18, 2024, which advises the appellant her driver’s license is suspended under s. 32(5) of the Act effective November 28, 2024 for the reason “failure to submit a satisfactory medical report.” The respondent also relies on a letter sent to the appellant dated October 7, 2024, advising her that the Ministry had received information indicating her driving privilege should be reviewed for medical reasons, and requiring further information from the appellant. Specifically, the Ministry required information dealing the circumstances leading to a reported incident/collision that occurred on September 30, 2024, including an indication if any medical condition(s) contributed to the incident/collision, details of the residual deficits and other disqualifying medical concerns, if any, and a completed Mental Health Disorder form, which was attached to the letter.

18The respondent also filed written argument in support of the motion to dismiss. The respondent submits that the Tribunal may hear appeals from decisions under s. 32(5) of the Act only where a right of appeal has been prescribed. It argues the applicable regulatory provision is s. 25.1 of Ontario Regulation 340/94, which states a decision made by the Minister under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act is prescribed as the kind of decision a person may appeal under s. 50 of the Act. The respondent argues that as the suspension of the appellant’s driver’s licence made because of her failure to file a medical report, the applicable provision is s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act. As, unlike s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act, there is no right of appeal under s. 50 from this type of decision, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

19The appellant filed submissions in response to the NOID, which we have carefully reviewed. The appellant disputes that she received the October 7, 2024 letter advising of the requirement to submit further medical information. Her written submission sates she was first made aware of a driver’s licence suspension when she was pulled over in April of 2025 and her car was impounded and she was advised by police her licence was suspended. The appellant states she received correspondence from the Ministry dated April 29, 2025 that reproduced a police incident report about the police receiving complaints about the appellant’s driving.

20The appellant states in her written submissions that the appeal should not be dismissed as there is no evidence of a mental or physical disability or condition, nor substance misuse that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely. She submits that she did not commit nor was she accused of committing a criminal offence while driving. The appellant further submits that around May of 2025, an emergency room doctor “submitted a good mental health report” to the Ministry, which should have sufficient to lift the suspension. She states that her driver’s licence was reinstated at a Service Ontario after she paid an amount of money to have her driver’s licence reinstated. The appellant’s written submission states she disagrees with information given by the Ministry that the money she paid was a penalty for driving without a valid driver’s licence. The appellant submits that the Ministry has unfairly imposed additional medical requirements for her to regain her driver’s licence. She states these additional requirements are burdensome and difficult to meet without her driver’s licence. The appellant reiterates her submissions that, when the police incident report in 2024 was received, she had not been committing any criminal act but was operating her vehicle in a responsible and safe manner.

Decision and Analysis

21The issue to be decided is:

i) Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of the respondent to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence?

22For the following reasons, we find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal from the suspension of her driver’s licence.

23We find that the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence was made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act. The respondent filed a letter sent to the appellant dated October 7, 2024 requesting medical information, as described in detail above. The respondent filed a Notice of Suspension of Driver’s Licence to the appellant dated November 18, 2024 which states the ground of suspension is “failure to submit a satisfactory medical report.” The Notice indicates the suspension is under s. 35(2) of the Act. The respondent also filed a copy of the appellant’s driving record showing the suspension for “fail to file medical” effective November 28, 2024.

24We have reviewed the appellant’s submissions in her Notice of Appeal and her written submissions to the NOID. Though the appellant references a number of dates on which events occurred she has attached no supporting documentation. In her Notice of Appeal, she states the decision appealed from was April 1, 2025, but has not provided a copy of this decision.

25The only documentation the Tribunal has to decide this motion is the letter, Notice of Suspension and driving record filed by the respondent. These documents state the appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended in November 2024 for failure to submit a satisfactory medical report. We find that the reason the appellant’s driver’s licence is suspended is for failure to file the medical report as requested by the respondent on October 7, 2024.

26We find the appellant’s driver’s licence is therefore suspended pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act, which provides:

32(5) The Minister may require an applicant for a driver’s licence or an endorsement or a person who holds a driver’s licence to submit to the examinations that are authorized by the regulations at the times and places required by the Minister and to meet other prescribed requirements, and the Ministry may,

b) in the case of a person who holds a driver’s licence,

(ii) where the person fails to submit to or successfully complete the examinations or fails to meet other prescribed requirements, impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any endorsements, suspend or cancel the driver’s licence being held by the person or change the class or classes of the driver’s licence held by the person;

27Subsection 15(1) of Ontario Regulation 340/94 states that the Minister may require any Ontario driver’s licence applicant or holder to submit to examinations, including medical or physical examinations:

15.(1) An examination of an applicant for or a holder of any class of driver’s licence, including a driver’s licence with or without any endorsement, condition or waiver, or an examination in relation to any endorsement, condition or wavier may include,

(e) medical and physical examinations, tests and procedures to determine the person’s fitness to drive or to determine whether the person meets the qualifications prescribed….

28We find that because the reason given by the respondent in the Notice of Suspension is failure to submit a satisfactory medical report, s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act was the applicable provision under which the suspension was made. This is made clear by a plain reading of the provision, which permits the respondent to suspend a licence for failing to submit to or successfully complete the examinations, which includes medical and physical examinations, pursuant to s. 15.(1) of Regulation 340/94.

29We find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s appeal as it is from a decision made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act. The right to appeal a Minister’s decision made under s. 32(5) of the Act is set out in s. 50(1) of the Act which provides that every person aggrieved by a decision of the Minister made under s. 32(5) for which there is a right of appeal pursuant to a regulation made under s. 32(14)(n) may appeal the decision to the Tribunal.

30 Ontario Regulation 340/94 prescribes the kinds of decisions which may be appealed to the Tribunal and s. 25.1 states that a decision made by the Minister under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act is a decision a person may appeal under s. 50 of the Act. There is no similar provision in the Regulation which specifically says that a decision made by the Minister pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) may be appealed under s. 50 of the Act.

31Therefore, we find that a decision made pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) is not one which is appealable under s. 50(1) of the Act and is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine.

ORDER

1The appellant’s appeal from the driver’s licence suspension is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Released: February 12, 2026

__________________________

Emily Morton

Adjudicator