1687513 Ontario Inc. (o/a Chahal Brothers Transport Inc.) v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2026 CanLII 21059

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17458/CVOR

An appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 from a Cancellation and Seizure Order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under sections 47 and 47.1 of the Act.

Between:

1687513 Ontario Inc. (o/a Chahal Brothers Transport Inc.)

Applicant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Michael Beauchesne

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Mansahib Aulakh, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Patrick Moore, Counsel

Court Reporter:

Chelsea Griffiths

Held by videoconference and by written submissions:

December 8, 2025 (videoconference) December 11, 2025, to January 5, 2026 (written submissions)

BACKGROUND

11687513 Ontario Inc o/a Chahal Brothers Transport (the “appellant”) appeals under section 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act’), from an order of the Registrar of Motor vehicles (the “respondent”) issued on July 22, 2025, to cancel a Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (“CVOR”) certificate and to seize the plate portion of any permits and number plates for all commercial motor vehicles and trailers.

2A Notice of Videoconference Hearing was issued for this matter on October 20, 2022, which set the hearing dates as December 8, 2025, and December 11, 2025.

3The parties appeared on December 8, 2025 as scheduled. Ms. Amanda Logan (senior regulatory compliance administrator) provided her testimony that day and both parties completed their respective examinations of her evidence. Per the adjournment order released on December 16, 2025, the Tribunal—at the request of the appellant and with consent of the respondent—converted the videoconference proceedings scheduled for December 11, 2025, to a written hearing format for the purpose of exchanging and filing closing submissions by January 5, 2026. As such, the parties agreed they would rely only on the evidence entered as exhibits on December 8, 2025, and evidence obtained through their examinations of Ms. Logan’s testimony.

ISSUES

4The issues in dispute, in accordance with section of the Act and confirmed by the parties are:

(a) Has the respondent established that the past conduct of the appellant affords reasonable grounds for belief that it will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with highway safety pursuant to sections 47 and 47.1 of the Act?

(b) And if so, is revocation of the certificates and seizure of the plate portion of permits for commercial vehicles and trailers issued to the appellant appropriate?

RESULT

5The respondent is directed to carry out its revocation order, in full.

ANALYSIS

Does the past conduct of the appellant afford reasonable grounds for belief it will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with highway safety pursuant to sections 47 and 47.1 of the Act?

6I find the respondent has met its onus to prove that the appellant’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief it will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with highway safety.

7Section 47(1) says the respondent may, by order, suspend or cancel the plate portion of a permit, a drivers’ licence, or a CVOR certificate. The grounds relied upon by the respondent to propose its May 2025 order—which is to cancel the CVOR certificate and plate portion of permits, as well as seize the plate portion of permits and number plates for all commercial motor vehicles and trailers registered to the appellant—are at paragraph (f), which states: “[T]he Registrar having 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 this Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety.”

8The respondent submits that the appellant’s record indicates a “significant” level of non-compliance and unsafe activity between August 2023 and August 2025. The respondent’s NOP characterizes the appellant’s overall violation rate during this period as “unacceptable,” and its written submissions point to the appellant’s CVOR abstract to particularize the collision, conviction, and inspection violation rates that contribute to the appellant’s “extremely high” overall safety violation rate. The respondent also relies on the appellant’s “out-of-service” ratio (i.e., a measure of vehicles and/or drivers ordered off the road by authorities because of a serious defect) to support its position, and submits that numerous interventions and sanctions leading up to the NOP did not have lasting success and failed to inspire sustainable improvements in compliance. The respondent depends on the oral evidence of Ms. Logan to support “many” parts of the appellant’s safety record that provide the grounds for its NOP.

9As well, the respondent references several authorities to show the Tribunal has confirmed cancellation decisions in which operators have had problematic long-term safety records despite interventions, including West Wind Express Inc. (Re), [2011] O.L.A.T.D. No. 342 (“West”); Day & Night Cargo Inc. and Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2016 CanLII 50083 ON LAT (“Day”); and A.A.M. Logistics Inc. and Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 86444 ON LAT (“AAM”).

10The appellant requests, pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, that the Tribunal set aside the respondent’s cancellation order and substitute a fleet limitation order, including a reduction of 11 trucks for a period of 12 months. The appellant argues that the respondent has not accounted for recent improvement that informs the “forward-looking assessment” required by section 47(1)(f) of the Act.

11The appellant says the Tribunal should employ the approach taken in Lewicki Transportation Co. Inc. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2017 CanLII 144635 ON LAT (“Lewicki”) because the appellant has shown “minor” improvements between April 2025 and August 2025 that is supported by “substantial” operational changes. The appellant also asserts that sanctions of less severity than revocation, such as audits and the fleet reductions featured in Lewicki, were not considered or employed by the respondent despite being available as a statutory intervention. The appellant also relies on Lee Trans Corporation v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2011 ONSC 6003 (“Lee”) to show that “cancellation is appropriate where escalating and meaningful interventions fail to correct non-compliance.” I have addressed these cases in my analysis of the second issue because I find that is where the thrust of the appellant’s arguments that flow from these authorities are most applicable.

12The appellant also says the Tribunal should consider whether the appellant was afforded a fair opportunity to correct deficiencies, given that Ms. Logan testified that Ontario’s transportation ministry does not assist in developing or implementing remedial plans to improve compliance.

The respondent has met its onus to show the appellant’s past conduct meets the threshold set out at section 47 of the Act.

13When viewed against the contextual backdrop afforded by Ms. Logan’s testimony, I find the appellant’s safety performance history, as documented in evidence, supports the grounds the respondent relies on to meet its onus.

14Ms. Logan described the overall violation rate—calculated as an average of three weighted factors that include ratios for collisions, convictions, and inspection violations—as a “key indicator for assessing safety performance,” and testified to the significance of the 35 per cent ratio as the threshold for enforcement action. For example, Ms. Logan explained that operators under 35 per cent are generally not subject to interventions, while operators above 35 percent would be sent warning letters. She added that operators with an overall safety violation rate at 50 per cent or greater may be audited or interviewed, and that a show-cause meeting would be required once an operator hit 85 per cent or greater.

15Ms. Logan also referenced “triggering methods” in the Commercial Vehicle Operators’ Safety Manual that include “chronic non-compliance” represented by a history of interventions without improvement progress. Ms. Logan specified that such “repeated bad behaviour” in concert with violation rates under 100 per cent would incur sanctions such as suspensions and cancellations.

16I find Ms. Logan’s explanation of the CVOR safety system is consistent with the framework accepted by the court in Lee and therefore afforded it weight. In Lee, the court notes that that: “… [a]t a 35% violation rate, a warning letter is normally sent. At a 50% violation rate, a request for a facility audit may be triggered. When the violation rate reaches 85%, an interview is requested. If a CVOR certificate holder’s violation rate rises to 100% or higher, the Registrar considers whether to impose a cancellation or a suspension. However, the CVOR Guideline also states that “chronic non-compliance” may lead to sanctions (regardless of whether that rate is 100% or more). In 2009, 96% of operators had a violation rate of 35% or less, while only 0.3% of operators had a violation rate of 85% or more.”

17Similarly, for this case the respondent points to statistics published by the Carrier Sanctions and Investigations Office that show 97.75 per cent of 61,773 registered CVOR certificate holders had overall violation rates under 35 per cent as of February 2025. In contrast, the appellant’s overall safety violation rate in December 2024 was 98.92 per cent, and just slightly less at 98.83 per cent as of August 2025. I find this places the appellant among the worst class of offenders under the CVOR system, putting it in a statistical population of well less than one percent of operators.

18I further find that the evidence before me shows the appellant’s safety performance did not fall below the 35-per-cent threshold for at least two periods in the appellant’s operating history. And further, that the multiple interventions and sanctions imposed during these periods resulted in little improvement. The chart below displays consolidated data in the appellant’s commercial vehicle operator records and provides this insight:

Event type

Period: Jul. 26, 2015 to Jul. 25, 2017

Period: Aug. 11, 2023, to Aug. 10, 2025

Collision

50.88%

61.43%

Conviction

93.12%

53.69%

Inspection

121.48%

263.92%

Overall violation rate

81.90%

98.83%

Vehicles taken out-of-service

37.04%

62.16%

19With regard to the collisions between August 2023 and 2025 specifically, I accept that four of the eight in the most recent period involved the “impropriety” (i.e., a violation) of the appellant’s drivers, which, in my view, weighs negatively on the past conduct of the appellant. The Motor Vehicle Accident Reports (“MVAR”)—all completed by police during between August 2023 and 2025—indicate the appellant’s drivers: (1) struck and caused a rollover of both involved vehicles; (2) struck another vehicle while executing a late lane change; (3) rear-ended another vehicle that had slowed for traffic; and (4) spawned a multi-vehicle collision upon rear-ending a pick-up truck with sufficient force to eject a generator from its open bed onto the side of the road. These MVAR indicate that each of these four incidents resulted in a careless driving charge under section 130 of the Act, and that the latter incident also incurred a charge for a suspension while prohibited from driving under section 43 of the Act.

20I also placed weight on the out-of-service metrics referenced by the respondent, which indicate that 62.16 per cent of the appellant’s 79 vehicles inspected during the August 2023-2025 period had to be taken off the road owing to a serious mechanical defect. During her testimony, Ms. Logan went through various inspection reports for this period, pointing out the serious defects that led to vehicles being taken out of service. I attach little relevance to the appellant’s submission that inspection violations should attract a targeted remedy (i.e. a CVOR condition as opposed to outright cancellation). The appellant reasoned that a lesser sanction than cancellation was appropriate because the maintenance deficiencies did not result from intentionally disregarding safety obligations. In my view, intent matters little in the context of public interest in highway safety because it remains that inadequate vehicle maintenance is a direct outcome of the appellant’s conduct and poses risk regardless of whether the appellant intentionally disregarded the mechanical fitness of its vehicles.

21While the grounds for the respondent’s cancellation proposal relate largely to the 24 months between August 2023 and 2025, I also considered that the respondent’s position is based on the appellant’s “chronically” poor safety performance. Taken together on a balance of probabilities, I find the violation data in evidence establishes that the appellant’s safety performance deteriorated on most measures since July 2015 and up to August 2025. While I find this evidence weighs negatively against the appellant’s past conduct, I afforded it even greater weight when I considered that poor performance persisted in the latter period despite sanctions and interventions implemented by the respondent during the intervening period (i.e., between August 2017 and July 2023) to encourage improvements. For example, the respondent’s submissions point to an interview in November 2017, a warning letter in November 2019, a second interview and warning letter in March 2021 and August 2021, respectively, as well as a sanction (i.e., a CVOR suspension) in October 2023.

22I considered too, that this problematic conduct extends even further back in the appellant’s history. The carrier safety record review produced by the respondent as of May 3, 2025, shows the appellant had compliance issues as far back as January 2012, including two warning letters. While I note the appellant passed audits conducted in November 2012 and 2014—and had an overall safety violation rating that improved to 37.12 per cent at the time of its March 2021 interview—I find these redeeming attributes are insufficient to mitigate the bulk of the evidence, which essentially shows a 14-year historical trend of safety violations and ongoing non-compliance up to the date of the hearing. As such, I accept Ms. Logan’s characterization of the appellant being a “chronically non-compliant operator” that attracts more severe sanctions (i.e. suspension or cancellation) owing to the road safety risk it poses from persistent non-compliance.

23I reject the appellant’s argument that the respondent failed to consider recent improvements in the appellant’s safety performance—specifically a decrease in the collision and conviction ratios between April 1, 2025 and August 30, 2025—in accordance with the “forward-looking assessment” required by section 47(1)(f) of the Act. I disagree that section 47(1)(f) requires any such assessment. While it affords the respondent broad discretion to consider “any other information” it deems relevant, I find this falls well short of a statutory requirement to extrapolate improving performance to a future period as proposed by the appellant. Further, section 47(1)(f) speaks to “having regard to the safety record of the holder,” which, in my view, is based on past behaviour and not predictions of future conduct. In any event, the appellant’s submissions acknowledge the rate changes were minimal, and the respondent’s reply agrees that the “limited numerical decrease in the collision violation rate over this short time frame does not establish substantial improvement.” When I consider this brief period of marginal improvement against a prolonged history of sustained non-compliance that has showed deteriorating performance on almost every measure, I find it insufficient to outweigh the safety risks imparted by the appellant’s past conduct.

24Similarly, I find little merit in the appellant’s argument that it was not afforded a fair opportunity to correct deficiencies before cancellation was proposed. The evidence shows multiple interventions were earlier implemented to help obtain compliance. These include four warning letters, two audits, two interviews, and a sanction between January 2012 and October 2023.

25I place greatest weight on the sanction because the suspension and seizure order dated October 31, 2023, establishes the applicant agreed—as an alternative to cancellation—to a four-day suspension and seizure period in December 2023 that involved performance conditions applied for one-year post-suspension. In my view, this sanction presented a fair opportunity for the appellant to demonstrate improvement and correct deficiencies.

26Despite this opportunity, the appellant failed to demonstrate improvement. For example, the appellant was advised that its CVOR certificate, plate portion of permits, and number plates would be subject to cancellation and seizure in the event of an overall safety violation rate exceeding 50 per cent during the post-suspension period, which commenced on December 27, 2023. The performance analysis report in evidence for this period showed the appellant’s overall safety violation rate was 98.92 per cent as of December 26, 2024.

27Throughout its submissions, the appellant attempted to show that the respondent failed in its duty to support the appellant’s compliance. For example, the appellant asserted that the respondent did not assist with corrective planning, used penalties where prevention was appropriate, and failed to consider the graduated remedies available to it under the Act, such as audits and fleet reductions. These arguments are not persuasive. The appellant did not show that the respondent is required by statute or jurisprudence to assist with action planning undertaken by the appellant to improve performance. I find the series of interventions undertaken by the respondent since 2012—which include audits and other measures—show a “compliance pathway” was, in fact, available to the appellant because these interventions strike me as preventative and corrective measures intended to help the appellant comply. After all, the respondent most recently forwent cancellation in favour of a four-day suspension and subsequent one-year performance period despite the chronic nature of the appellant’s non-compliance up to that point.

28While I appreciate that the appellant had submitted an action plan to improve its safety record after the show-cause meeting in May 2025, I do not agree this is evidence of “substantial operational changes” as submitted by the respondent. It is merely a plan, and I was not directed to evidence of implementation that established operational changes had actually occurred.

Is revocation of the certificates and seizure of the plate portion of permits for commercial vehicles and trailers issued to the appellant appropriate?

29I agree that cancellation and seizure is the appropriate sanction in this case.

30Section 50(1) of the Act enables the appellant to appeal the respondent’s NOP to the Tribunal, and section 50(2) gives the Tribunal the authority to confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the respondent.

31The respondent submits that no remedy short of cancelling the appellant’s CVOR is capable of protecting the public interest in safe highways because of a long history of interventions and a previous suspension that failed to correct the appellant’s non-compliance. The respondent points to its October 2023 Minutes of Settlement (the “Minutes”) to show the appellant was aware it would be subject to cancellation if it failed to comply with the specified post-suspension performance conditions.

32The appellant argues that cancellation is not the only reasonable or proportionate outcome in this case, reasoning that the evidence supports a finding that public safety can be adequately protected through a fleet reduction order, coupled with appropriate monitoring conditions.

33I do not agree that reducing the size of the appellant’s fleet—imposed as a condition to maintain the appellant’s CVOR under the Tribunal’s authority at section 50(2) of the Act—would address the “root cause” of the appellant’s safety issues. I find the appellant did not show beyond mere speculation that its safety performance directly correlates with fleet size. For example, the appellant pointed to the March 2021 interview record in evidence to show it was operating with 15 drivers, 15 trucks and 16 trailers—described by the appellant as its smallest fleet size in the “relevant historical period”—when its overall violation rate was reportedly at its lowest ratio of 37.12 per cent. And yet, I find the November 2017 interview record in evidence shows the appellant’s overall violation rate was higher (i.e. 60.42 per cent) despite operating a smaller fleet of 13 drivers, 13 trucks, and 13 trailers. In my view, this does not support the appellant’s correlation position, nor its argument that it operated with more than 20 drivers, 20 trucks, and 20 trailers during the rest of the periods with higher violation rates.

34Given the lack of evidence to support a correlation between violation rates and fleet size, I find it matters little that Ms. Logan’s testimony confirmed fleet reduction was not considered at any point during the appellant’s post-suspension performance period, nor proposed as an alternative to cancellation. I also find it was open to the appellant to voluntarily reduce its fleet size at any point of its operational history—and certainly during the post-suspension period—to improve compliance if it believed this would help. I was not pointed to evidence that showed the appellant implemented any fleet reductions on its own initiative to improve safety performance, and did not see any mention of a planned fleet reduction in the 2025 action plan referenced in its submissions.

35Lewicki, which is not binding on me, did not persuade me otherwise. In Lewicki, the Tribunal imposed conditions on the operator’s CVOR (i.e., a reduction in vehicle fleet size) as an alternative to cancellation and seizure because it provided evidence of performance improvement. While I accept there is evidence of recent performance improvement in this case, I find it is distinguishable from Lewicki where the post-suspension period improvement was a much larger decrease in the overall safety violation rate to 64.12 per cent from 121 per cent at the time of the show-cause meeting. Further, in Lewicki, the Tribunal had several data points that demonstrated a correlation between this improvement and a smaller fleet.

36I also consider Lee here and find it does not assist in supporting he appellant’s position either. In Lee, the court concluded that cancellation was a reasonable sanction given the appellant’s past record and continuing high violation rates despite a suspension. While I do not disagree in principle that cancellation is appropriate where escalating and meaningful interventions fail to correct non-compliance, I find that in this case the evidence is at odds with appellant’s argument that “not all meaningful interventions were utilized before resorting to cancellation.” Rather, I am persuaded the respondent properly and reasonably exercised an appropriate scope of statutory options throughout the appellant’s operation history to obtain compliance prior to proposing cancellation. The chronic nature of the appellant’s non-compliance persuades me that yet another audit or other intervention short of cancellation would do little to improve the appellant’s safety performance and reduce risk to public safety on Ontario’s highways.

ORDER

37I direct the respondent to carry out its revocation order of July 3, 2025, in full.

Released: March 9, 2026

___________________________

Michael Beauchesne

Adjudicator