666654 Ontario Limited o/a K & K Towing and Automotive Repair v. Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards, 2026 CanLII 23854

Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17544 TSSEA

In the matter of an appeal of a Cancellation Order issued under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 26, Sched. 3

Between:

666654 Ontario Limited o/a K & K Towing and Automotive Repair Appellant

and

Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards Respondent

MOTION ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Rebecca Hines

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Eric Sabbah, Paralegal

For the Respondent: Patrick Moore, Counsel

For the Non-Parties:

Erin MacGillvray, Counsel for Ontario Provincial Police (OPP)

Megan Hillis, Counsel for Neil Richardson

Julia Fischer, Counsel for Corey Rydall

oVERVIEW

1666654 Ontario Limited o/a K & K Towing and Automotive Repair (the “appellant”) appealed a Cancellation Order of the Director of Towing and Vehicle Standards (the “respondent”) cancelling its Tow Operator Certificate and Vehicle Storage Certificate pursuant to subsection 7(1) of the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 26, Sched. 3 (the “Act”).

2I was assigned to a four-day videoconference hearing scheduled to commence on March 16, 2025.

BACKGROUND

3This hearing was initially scheduled for one-day on February 14, 2026; however, it was adjourned, and an additional three days were added to accommodate the appellant’s intention to call seven witnesses.

4On February 25, 2026, the appellant filed submissions which indicated that it planned to call 14 witnesses, several of which were not on the initial witness list served on the respondent. In addition, one week prior to the hearing, the appellant requested five summonses to witnesses from the Tribunal for non-parties including three members of the OPP: Officer Michael McConnell, Officer Keith Brown and Detachment Commander Marla Barfoot; Neil Richardson, a former employee of the appellant; and Corey Rydall, an owner of another tow truck company. The summonses issued increased the appellant’s witness list to 20.

5This order addresses the parties’ and witnesses’ submissions regarding the summonses issued by the Tribunal and the respondent’s request to exclude witnesses. The appellant’s motion requesting that the video which is central to this appeal be excluded was denied and additional reasons will be provided in my decision on the merits.

Motion to Exclude Witnesses

6The respondent submits that it would be procedurally unfair to allow the appellant to call 20 witnesses because the Tribunal’s case conference report and order dated October 23, 2025, provided the parties with a deadline of November 21, 2025, to serve and file their witness list. As of this date, the appellant only intended to call two witnesses. Further, the witness list the appellant recently served on it was drastically different from the initial witness served in November 2025. In addition, the adjournment order limited the appellant to calling seven witnesses and that number has since doubled. The respondent also argues that two of the witnesses proposed by the appellant are experts (Lori Elliott and Dr. Sutherland) and the appellant did not comply with Rule 10 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”) and serve it with an acknowledgement of expert duty or information about the qualifications of these expert witnesses 45 days prior to the hearing. As a result, they should excluded from testifying.

7In addition, the respondent argues that the five non-party witnesses who have been summonsed to testify do not have any relevant evidence pertaining to the issues the Tribunal has been asked to decide and fall outside the scope of this appeal. The summons also ordered these witnesses to bring numerous records which were not previously requested by the appellant. The respondent submits that it would be unfair to these witnesses to comply with such a request for records with such short notice. The appellant has also taken no steps prior to the hearing to bring a motion for third party records pursuant to Rule 9.2.2. I also heard submissions from counsel for the non-party witnesses, who relied on the submissions raised by the respondent which I will discuss further below.

8The appellant submits that all of the witnesses listed in its submissions dated February 25, 2026, have evidence relevant to the issues in dispute. The OPP officers who have been summonsed received video evidence, which is a subject to this appeal, and transmitted the video to the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”). The appellant argues that the OPP failed to properly investigate the origin of the video and did not accommodate an individual who has a disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Moreover, the appellant maintains that Mr. Richardson has relevant evidence to this appeal because he unlawfully obtained the video and submitted it to the OPP. Finally, Mr. Rydall, an owner of a rival tow truck company, has relevant evidence because he conspired with Mr. Richardson to shut down the appellant’s business. The appellant asserts that it is necessary to test the foundation of the respondent’s decision to cancel its certificates in order for a fair hearing.

ANALYSIS

8Rule 9.2.2 provides that a party seeking production from a non-party may request an order from the Tribunal by filing a notice of motion and serving on the other parties and the non-party. The Tribunal may order a non-party to disclose or produce any document or thing that the Tribunal considers relevant to the issues in dispute in the proceeding. The requesting party must also make reasonable efforts to obtain the document or thing without a production order.

9Rule 9.3 establishes that if a party fails to comply with any Rule, direction or order of the Tribunal with respect to the exchange or production of witness lists, the party may not call a witness who is not included on a witness list which is not filed in compliance with the Rules or order without the permission of the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall hear submissions from the parties before making its determination on whether to permit or refuse the party from relying on the impugned witness. In determining whether a witness may testify, the Tribunal will consider a) the reasons for non-compliance; b) whether the other party will be prejudiced by the admission or exclusion of the evidence and the extent the prejudice can be mitigated; c) the extent to which the substance of the information or testimony lies within the knowledge of the other party; d) whether the other party opposes the admission of the evidence or testimony; and e) the relevance of the testimony to an issue in dispute.

10Rule 10 sets out the rules regarding the disclosure requirements regarding expert witnesses and that various information should be served on the other party and filed with the Tribunal 45 days prior to a hearing.

11Section 15(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act provides the Tribunal with broad discretion to admit any evidence that is relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding and may exclude anything unduly repetitious. Section 23(1) of the SPPA provides the Tribunal with the authority to control its process and give directions in a proceeding to prevent abuse of its processes.

12Since multiple issues have been raised, I will first address the additional witnesses the appellant added to the witness list and will then discuss whether the summons for any non-party witness should be quashed as well as the issue of whether the appellant’s request for non-party production of records should be granted.

Limits on the Appellant’s Witnesses

13I find the appellant did not provide any reasonable explanation for increasing its witness list from seven to fourteen since the Tribunal’s adjournment order issued on February 17, 2026. I find that if the appellant wished to double its witness list, they should have filed a motion seeking permission from the Tribunal. The appellant did not do so. In addition, I find many of the witnesses on the appellant’s revised witness list would provide testimony that would be unduly repetitious or irrelevant to the scope of the appeal and the issue that I have been asked to decide. For example, there were numerous employees employed by the appellant on the revised witness list and the description of their proposed testimony was repetitive.

14Although the appellant’s witness list was not exchanged by the initial deadline (November 21, 2025) provided in the Tribunal’s order, I find the respondent was given over three weeks notice of the appellant’s intention to call these witnesses. Consequently, I find that it is not prejudiced because it had sufficient notice to prepare for their anticipated testimony. However, to ensure an efficient hearing and avoid unnecessary delay, I limited the appellant to calling seven out of the fourteen witnesses as per the Tribunal’s adjournment order dated February 17, 2026, and left it up to the appellant to decide which witnesses would be called. However, I excluded Dr. Sutherland from testifying because the appellant did not comply with the disclosure obligations regarding experts set out in Rule 10. As a result, I find the respondent would be prejudiced because it was not provided with the necessary disclosure so that it could make an informed choice to challenge this witness’s qualifications or testimony. However, I permitted Lori Elliott to testify because she is a treating psychotherapist to one of the witnesses and not an expert.

Summons to Witnesses

OPP Members

15In Elmaati v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ONSC 3176 at paras 61 to 68, the Court set out the principles that govern whether to quash a summons for a motion or application under Rule 39.03(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194. The Divisional Court adopted them in PowerServe Inc. v Ontario College of Trades, 2015 ONSC 857 (Div Ct) at para 15, and the Tribunal applied essentially the same in 10179 v Director under the Consumer Protection Act, 2016 CanLII 50121 (ON LAT) at paras 15, 17-18, and 24-31. The principles relevant to this motion are as follows:

1. A summons may be quashed if the evidence sought is not relevant or the examination would amount to an abuse of process.

2. The appellant must establish that the evidence is relevant and that the witness is in a position to provide the evidence.

3. If the evidence is relevant, the respondent must establish that the examination is an abuse of process.

16The respondent submits that I should quash the summons issued by the Tribunal for the OPP members to testify because their evidence is of limited relevance to the scope of this appeal. Their evidence is limited to the process of obtaining the video. In addition, the information on the summons regarding the records requested was overly broad and the respondent and the Tribunal will be inundated with hundreds of pages of records at the last minute which it has not had a chance to review. An adjournment will be required for these records to be obtained and properly reviewed.

17Counsel for the OPP did not oppose the summons; however, they raised serious concerns about the direction on the summons for its officers to produce numerous records and the timing of the request. The OPP submits that it was only served with the summons last Wednesday. Further, it will take significant time for it to conduct searches for the relevant records and redact confidential information in order to comply with the direction on the summons. An adjournment will be required in order for it to comply with the direction in the summons. The OPP also submits that the appellant did not comply with Rule 9.2.2 and bring a motion for these non-party records in advance of the hearing and has not made any efforts prior to the hearing to obtain any records.

18The appellant submits that the OPP officers have evidence that is relevant to the issues in dispute. For example, they were involved in the investigation, transmitted the video to the MTO and failed to accommodate one of the witnesses involved in the process of its investigation. The appellant then narrowed its production request to copies of emails between the OPP and the MTO; however, the OPP submits this would take significant time to conduct searches and review and redact confidential information. The appellant submits that it did not take steps to obtain these records prior to the hearing because their theory of the case changed recently. The appellant then conceded that it would be content with examining the officers about their involvement in this matter in the absence of the production of any records.

19I declined to quash the summons issued by the Tribunal for Officer Brown because he was directly involved in receiving and processing the video footage from Mr. Richardson which is at the centre of this proceeding. Consequently, I find the officer would have evidence that is relevant to this appeal.

20I quashed the summons issued by the Tribunal for Officer McConnell because I find his testimony would be unduly repetitious and would add little probative value to this proceeding. Central to the appellant’s argument is that the video was unlawfully obtained and transmitted by the OPP to the MTO. The appellant brought a motion to exclude the video as evidence at this hearing on this basis. I declined to exclude this video from the proceeding because I determined that it was directly relevant to this appeal with reasons to follow in the decision on the merits. However, I find the testimony of three OPP members on the investigation or how the video was obtained to be unduly repetitious. For the same reasons, I also quashed the summons issued for Detachment Commander Barefoot because I find her evidence would also be unduly repetitious and would have limited relevance to the issue that I have been asked to decide.

21I declined to order the OPP to produce any records as per the direction in the Tribunal’s summons because the appellant did not bring a motion as per Rule 9.2.2 or take any steps to obtain the production of these records prior to the hearing. Moreover, I was not provided with any reasonable explanation by the appellant for the late request for these records on the eve of the hearing. I find that ordering the OPP to produce these records would result in a further delay in a determination being made in this matter because an adjournment of the hearing would be required. This file has already been adjourned once, and I am not convinced that the probative value of these records outweighs a timely determination being made in this matter. Consequently, the summons is varied, and the OPP is not ordered to produce these records.

Neil Richardson

22Counsel for Mr. Richardson also opposed the summons on the basis that his evidence will have little relevance to the subject matter of this appeal. Further, Mr. Richardson opposed the appellant’s late request for productions because he just received the summons and the appellant’s materials on Friday and Saturday. Further, the appellant has requested documents that it has access to such as copies of communications between him and the appellant. He also submits that the appellant did not bring a motion for non-party records as per Rule 9.2.2 and made no efforts to obtain any records from him prior to this hearing. Consequently, the summons which ordered him to bring and produce various records should be struck.

23The appellant argues that Mr. Richardson is the individual who received the video by mistake and shared it with police. Therefore, his evidence is directly relevant to every aspect of this case. Further, he was involved with Mr. Rydall in the alleged conspiracy to take down the appellant’s business by weaponizing this video. He is prepared to narrow his request for records between him and the OPP.

24I declined to quash the summons for Mr. Richardson because he is a former employee of the appellant and is the individual who initially obtained the video and submitted it to the police. As a result, I find that his testimony and evidence is directly relevant to this appeal because it will provide context about how the video was received, distributed and submitted to the police. I decline to order Mr. Richardson to produce any documents because I find the appellant has not brought a motion for third party records and has not taken any steps to obtain this evidence in advance of the hearing.

Corey Rydall

25Counsel for Mr. Rydall submits that this matter involves a cancellation order of the appellant’s towing and storage certificates for five traffic violations and an inappropriate video taken by one of its employees. Mr. Rydall had no involvement in any of the allegations outlined in the respondent’s cancellation order. Further, the appellant’s accusations that Mr. Rydall was a participant in a scheme of weaponizing the video to take down the appellant’s business is inappropriate and not relevant to the issue that I have been asked to decide. Therefore, the summons should be quashed because the testimony of Mr. Rydall is not relevant to the subject of this appeal.

26The appellant submits that Mr. Rydall’s testimony is relevant because he employed Mr. Richardson while he was on sick leave from being employed by the appellant and his evidence is therefore relevant to Mr. Richardson’s credibility. Further, Mr. Rydall’s business is the sole beneficiary of the cancellation of the appellant’s licence, and he conspired with Mr. Richardson to weaponize the video to take down the appellant’s business.

27I quashed the summons issued by the Tribunal for Mr. Rydall to testify because I find that his evidence is not relevant to the issues in dispute. Based on the information on the summons to witness, Mr. Rydall was not directly involved in the incident involving the video or submitting it to the police. Further, I do not find the appellant’s argument that Mr. Rydall was involved in an alleged conspiracy to take down the appellant’s business relevant to the issue I have been asked to decide.

ORDER

28For the above-noted reasons, I order as follows:

i) The appellant is limited to calling seven witnesses as per the Tribunal’s order dated February 17, 2026.

ii) Dr. Sutherland is excluded from testifying at the proceeding because the appellant did not comply with Rule 10.

iii) The summonses to witness issued to Corey Rydall, Officer Michael McConnell and Detachment Commander Marla Barfoot are quashed.

iv) The summonses ordering Neil Richardson and the OPP to produce various records are quashed.

29Nothing in this Order affects any requirement under the Act. The hearing of this appeal shall resume on March 18, 2026.