Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:18188/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 Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act.

Between:

Jane Hallman

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

MOTION DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Kevin Kovalchuk

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Jane Hallman, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

HEARD: By Teleconference

OVERVIEW

1Jane Hallman (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend their Class G licence under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

2The Registrar filed a Notice of Motion with the Licence appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) on February 10, 2026, seeking to have the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

3A case conference was held on February 18, 2026, at which time the Motion was heard.

ISSUE

4The issue to be determined is whether the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

RESULT

5The Registrar’s motion is granted.

ANALYSIS

6The Registrar relies on section 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act which states the Minister may,

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

7The Registrar submits that subsection 15(1) of Ontario regulation 340/94 states,

An examination of an applicant for or holder of any class or driver’s licence with or without and endorsement, condition or waiver, or an examination in relation to any endorsement, condition or waiver 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 by section 14, 17, 18, 21.1, 21.2 or 21.3. O. Reg.

340/94, s. 15 (1); O. Reg. 490/98, s. 1; O. Reg. 83/05, s. 8 (1, 2); O. Reg. 42/12, s. 2; O. Reg. 504/21, s. 1.

8The Registrar submits that the appellant’s licence was suspended for failure to submit a satisfactory medical report, and that the failure to submit a medical report provides grounds for suspension under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act.

9The appellant did not make any submissions with respect to the motion except to submit that she could not find a doctor to sign the medical report that was provided by the Registrar.

10Ontario Regulation 340/94 (‘Regulation”) 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.

11Therefore, I 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.

CONCLUSION

12The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appellants appeal with respect to the Minister’s decision to downgrade the appellants driver’s licence pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Act.

ORDER

13For reasons given orally, and pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class G driver’s licence.

14The respondent requested written reasons orally, at the conclusion of the hearing. This decision constitutes reasons in writing and the date of the decision for the purpose of a request for reconsideration under Rule 18 is the date written reasons are issued, unless the Tribunal orders otherwise.