Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17985/MED

In the matter of a motion seeking to dismiss an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8. (the "Act")

Between:

Brandon Kuhn

Appellant

and

Minister of Transportation

Respondent

MOTION DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Kevin Kovalchuk

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Brandon Kuhn, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Melissa Litrenta, Representative

HEARD: By way of written submissions

OVERVIEW

1Brandon Kuhn (the "appellant") appeals the decision of the Minister of Transportation (the "Respondent") to extend his ignition interlock condition by six months as set forth in correspondence dated October 30, 2025. He requests that:

• The extension of the ignition interlock condition be set aside and rescinded;

• The Respondent be directed to remove the ignition interlock condition immediately;

• The Licence appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal") find that reliance on unverified vendor data is unreasonable; and

• The Respondent be directed to conduct independent oversight of interlock vendors.

2A hearing on the appeal is scheduled to commence on March 13, 2026.

3The Respondent filed a Notice of Motion with the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal") on January 5, 2026, seeking to have the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

4At a case conference held on January 9, 2026, the adjudicator ordered that the Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack or jurisdiction be scheduled for a written motion hearing on February 11, 2026.

ISSUE

5The issue to be determined is whether the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

RESULT

6The Respondent's motion is adjourned to the first hearing.

ANALYSIS

7The interlock condition on the appellant's driver's licence was extended by six months as a result of a report to the Ministry of Transportation from his ignition interlock service provider of a "second BAC failure on September 21, 2025".

8The appellant submits that the decision to extend his interlock condition by six months is a decision under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act. He further submits that the decision to extend an interlock condition "is plainly a decision to impose a licence condition".

9The Respondent submits that the only kind of action by the Minister or the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the "Registrar") that can be appealed are decisions under section 32(5)(b)(i) or section 47(1).

10Section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act states that the Minister may, in the case of a person who holds a driver's licence,

"(i) impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any conditions or endorsements or change the class or classes of driver's licence held by the person, in accordance with the results of the examinations and other prescribed requirements."

11Section 47(1) of the Act also deals with the suspension or cancellation of driver's licences.

12Section 50 of the Act allows for an appeal to the Tribunal of a decision of the Minister under subsection 32(5) for which there is a right of appeal or an order of the Registrar under section 47.

13Section 25.1 of Ontario Regulation 340/94 states, "A decision made by the Minister under subclause 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act is prescribed as a kind of decision a person may appeal under section 50 of the Act.

14The Respondent submits that as the appellant's driver's licence has not been suspended or downgraded under s. 32(5)(b)(i) or section 47 there is no right of appeal to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

15The Respondent states that the appellant is in fact appealing the receipt of correspondence for extending the ignition interlock condition. The Respondent sets out the authority for extending ignition interlock conditions as s.19.3 of O.Reg. 287/08 (the "Regulation") and Subsection 19.3(3) of the Regulation indicates that the Registrar may extend the period during which the driver's licence shall be subject to an interlock condition described in subsection (1) by six months if the Registrar is satisfied that,

a) the ignition interlock device has been tampered with;

(b) the person has failed to comply with section 17; or

(c) the person has failed to comply with the ignition interlock condition referred to in subsection 11 (1). O. Reg. 334/18, s. 7.

16The Respondent asserts in its submissions that it has not made any decision under s. 32(5)(b)(i): however, the Respondent does not provide submissions on why its decision to extend the ignition interlock condition does not constitute a decision under s. 32(5)(b)(i). The Respondent cities s. 19.3 of the Regulation but does not explain how section 19.3 of the Regulation relates to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act, if at all. The respondent merely states that "[a]s this is not a suspension or a downgrade there is no right to appeal to the Tribunal." However, the issue of whether the license has been suspended is irrelevant, as s. 32(5)(b)(i) does not relate to suspensions and no one is alleging that the licence has been downgraded. The Respondent has not otherwise explained its position on why this was not a decision made under s. 32(5)(b)(i). Without submissions on this point, the Tribunal is unable to decide this motion as I would need further submissions.

17As I understand this matter is already scheduled to start the hearing on the merits imminently, I am adjourning this motion to be dealt with by the adjudicator assigned to hear the hearing on the merits.

CONCLUSION

18For the reasons set out above I am unable to decide this motion and the motion will be adjourned.

ORDER

19The Respondent's motion is adjourned to be dealt with by the adjudicator assigned to hear the hearing on the merits.

20I am not seized of this matter.

Released: March 13, 2026

__________________________

Kevin Kovalchuk

Vice-Chair