v Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2026 ONLAT-CVOR 17597

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17597/CVOR

Appeal under Section 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990 C.H.8 from a Cancellation and Seizure Order of the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles under sections 47 and 47.1 of the Act

Between:

12945029 Canada Inc. o/a Navi Transportation Services

Applicant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

Decision

ADJUDICATOR:

Laura Hodgson, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Yashmeen Brar, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Patrick Moore, Counsel

Heard by videoconference:

February 24, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Navi Transportation Services (the appellant), a trucking company, appeals from an order of the Registrar of Motor vehicles (the “respondent”), issued on September 3, 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. The order stipulated that the respondent was concerned for highway safety because of the appellant’s affiliation with AAM Logistics (“AAM”), a cancelled carrier, with an unsatisfactory rating. At the hearing, the respondent also submitted that the appellant’s own safety record, provides reason to believe that it will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.8 (the “Act”), its regulations and other laws relating to highway safety. Lastly the respondent submits in the alternative that, “based on other relative information” the Registrar has reason to believe the appellant will not operate safely or in compliance with legislation.

2Navneet Singh, the sole owner and director of the appellant, submits that the respondent has not established the appellant is related to the cancelled carrier or that its own safety record or any other information provides a basis for the cancellation and seizure order. In the alternative, the appellant suggests that continued registration with conditions would be more appropriate.

ISSUES

3The issues to be decided are:

a. Is there reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the appellant or of a person related to the appellant, and any other relevant information, that the appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety?

b. If the answer is yes, what is the appropriate outcome?

RESULT

4I find:

a. There is reason to believe that the Appellant will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with the Act the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety.

b. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for conditions and vary the respondent’s order.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Issue A: Based on relevant information there is reason to believe the appellant will not operate commercial motor vehicles safely or in accordance with Act

5Under section 47(1)(f) of the Act, the Registrar may cancel a CVOR on the grounds of:

the 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 vehicle safely or in accordance with this Act, the regulations, and any other laws relating to highway safety.

6An order under s. 47 may be appealed to this Tribunal and, on an appeal, the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the order of the Registrar (see s. 50 of the Act). The onus is on the respondent to establish that the appellant’s CVOR should be revoked. The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that as a standard of proof, ‘reasonable grounds for belief’ is lower than ‘balance of probabilities.’ It requires more than mere suspicion and an objective basis for the belief which is based on compelling and credible information (see Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario) v. 751809 Ontario Inc. (Famous Flesh Gordon’s), 2013 ONCA 157 at paras 18-19).

7Based on all the evidence, I find the respondent has not established the cancelled carrier and appellant are related as this term is defined under the Act or that the appellant’s own safety record provides a basis for cancellation of the appellant’s CVOR. I do find that the respondent has established reason to believe that the appellant will not operate commercial vehicles safely or in accordance with laws relating to highway safety based on “other information that the register considers relevant”. For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for continued licensing with conditions.

The Appellant and AAM Logistics Inc Are Not Related Under the Act

8I find that, when considering the appellant’s safety record, I can not consider the safety record of the cancelled carrier AAM as, in my view, it does not constitute a related company under the Act.

9Section 17(4) of the Act provides that an applicant is related to a person if at least one of the following is established:

(a) the applicant and the person are related individuals;

(b) either the applicant or the person is a partner of the other or was a partner of the other or they have or have had partners in common;

(c) either the applicant or the person, directly or indirectly, controls or controlled or manages or managed the other; or

(d) the applicant and the person have or have had common officers or directors, or they are or have been controlled, directly or indirectly, by the same shareholders.

10Section 47(2.1) of the Act provides that s. 17(4) applies with necessary modifications for the purpose of determining who are related persons for the purposes of s. 47(1)(f).

11AAM was issued a Notice of Cancellation and Seizure on November 29, 2023, and the Order was issued on January 29, 2024. AAM’s CVOR cancellation was upheld on appeal to this Tribunal. The decision notes that AAM’s overall violation rate was 108.18%, making it safety rating-wise, one of the worst 0.05% of CVOR holders in Ontario. AAM’s violation rate had never been below 80% and the adjudicator concluded, “The appellant [AAM] has demonstrated a disregard for public safety almost since being granted a CVOR and has preferred its own business interest” (A.A.M. Logistics Inc. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 126293 (ON LAT)).

12There is no evidence of direct control or management of the appellant by AAM or of AAM by the appellant. The two companies have never had common officers or directors. The respondent submits rather, that various links between the appellant, AAM and a third company, Total Recycling Solutions, are sufficient to establish indirect control and ownership under section 17 (4) (c) and (d) of the Act.

13Singh, owner of appellant, testified that he worked for AAM, under its CVOR, from July 2021 to May 2024. Initially he was a company driver for AAM and then, after purchasing his own truck in 2023, he became an owner/operator contracting with AAM.

14Singh testified that he was never a shareholder of AAM, had no control over corporate decisions and was not responsible for AAM compliance or CVOR matters. He emphasised that he was “just a driver” with the company and had “no relationship” with the owner and director of AAM, Arsalan Minhas. As noted below, Singh did have a business relationship with the spouse of Mr. Minhas, Ms. Amara Ahmad. Singh insisted that he did not know Mr. Minhas and Ms. Ahamad were married until the current proceedings.

15Singh incorporated the appellant company Navi Transportation Services in 2021. He is the sole director, owner, and shareholder. He testified that he did not want anyone else involved with his company because it is his business to support his family. The appellant was issued a CVOR certificate on December 29, 2023. Singh testified that he started driving under this CVOR certificate in July 2024. The appellant has two trucks and six trailers. It has hired a Safety Manager and one dispatcher. Singh asserted that AAM has no ownership interests, no signing authority, no share in profits and does not direct operations.

16It was the respondent’s position that the former owner of AAM Minhas, his wife Ms. Ahmad (who is not alleged to have had any involvement with AAM) and Singh worked together to establish the appellant driving company so the appellant could subsume AAM’s business.

17As noted, to consider the safety record of AAM when considering the safety record of the appellant, the respondent must establish that they are “related” under the Act. The respondent submits that there is evidence of indirect control or ownership of the appellant making AAM and the appellant related. This, it asserts, is based on the appellant hiring two former AAM drivers, the transfer of vehicles from AAM and the appellant’s business relationship with Total Recycling Solutions -recycling company owned by Ahmad. While I find that, the evidence cumulatively amounts to clear links between AAM and the appellant and perhaps an effort to obscure those links before the Registrar, I do not find the respondent has established indirect control or ownership as required under the Act for AAM to be related to the appellant.

Employment of two former Drivers and Vehicle Transfer from AAM

18Kevin Kirkham, a Senior Regulatory Compliance Administrator with the Ministry of Transportation testified that employment of two drivers who previously worked for AAM and vehicle transfers indicated an “affiliation” between the appellant and the cancelled carrier AAM.

19The respondent established, and the appellant agreed, that it employed two drivers that had previously worked for AAM. The respondent had also identified that two trucks and eight trailers that had belonged to AAM were transferred to the appellant in August of 2024. The appellant testified that these vehicles were transferred as part of AAM’s outstanding debt to Singh for his unpaid work as a driver with AAM. Singh provided an undated letter from AAM which sets out that Singh was employed by AAM and, due to financial difficulties, AAM was unable to pay all his wages in 2023 and 2024 with a total outstanding balance of $101 257.61. The letter states “Given the substantial amount owed, ownership of some equipment trailers was transferred to you as partial payment toward the outstanding wages. After accounting for the transfer of the trailers, a remaining balance of $38 500.00 continues to be outstanding”. The letter is signed by Minhas on behalf of AAM and Singh on behalf of the appellant. Singh testified that AAM provided this document at his request approximately four months ago. He submitted there was an earlier document relating to AAM’s debt, but it was not provided as evidence.

20According to Singh the vehicles were put in his company name and AAM had no control or operation of the vehicles after the transfer. The appellant provided a Bill of Sale dated July 09, 2024, from AAM to the appellant for eight trailers totalling $45 200.00. Singh testified this amount was never paid to AAM because of its outstanding debt to him as evidenced in their correspondence.

21Singh also provided a number of driving invoices from January to May 2024 that he submits were issued to AAM but were unpaid. While the respondent’s suggested that it is very unusual for a driver to be unpaid for an extended period, Singh disagreed. He asserted there are many unpaid drivers in the trucking industry.

Relationship with Total Recycling Solutions

22The respondent also submits that the appellant’s relationship with a third company, Total Recycling Solutions, establishes that the appellant is related to the cancelled carrier under the Act. Total Recycling Solutions was incorporated on April 01, 2024. Federal records indicated that Amara Ahmad was corporate officer, and her husband Arslan Minhas owned more than 25% of shares from November 2024 to November 2025. Following this, Ahmad was the only officer/owner listed.

23Ms. Ahmad was asked to attend the appellant’s show cause meeting with the Deputy Registrar on February 21, 2025, because it was believed that Total Recycling Solutions was affiliated with the appellant. According to the meeting minutes, Ms. Ahmad explained that Total Recycling Solutions owns no vehicles and does not use a CVOR in its recycling business. She indicated that the appellant uses the company yard in Milton to park its vehicles.

24Curiously, at this meeting, Ms. Ahmad denied knowing who Arsalan Minhas was. The respondent established they have, in fact, been married since 2015. At the meeting, Singh stated that he believed Ahmad’s husband was someone by the name of Anmol. In cross examination at the hearing, Singh again asserted that, at the time of the meeting, he did not know Ahmad was married to Minhas, the owner of AAM.

25Following the meeting, at the request of the Deputy Registrar, the appellant provided a copy of its commercial lease agreement with Total Recycling Solutions dated October 15, 2024. The lease, signed by Ahmad and Singh permits the appellant to park its trailers at 3153 Steeles Avenue for a monthly rent of $4500.00.

26The appellant also provided, as requested by the Ministry, receipts of rent paid to Total Recycling Solutions between November 2024 and February 2025. Mr. Kirkham testified that he questioned the legitimacy of the receipts because Total Recycling Solutions had, on its letterhead, erroneously listed the company as being provincially rather than federally incorporated.

27On receipt of the lease and rent receipts the Ministry also requested the appellant provide proof of rent paid to Total Recycling Solutions. Mr. Kirkham testified that, in response, he only received individual bank pages and “snippets” of information. Some of the statements confirmed e-transfers from the appellant to Total Recycling Solutions that matched the invoices with respect to rent payments. Mr. Kirkham noted that there were “some anomalies” in the balances not adding up on the statements provided. While there was no visual indication of it, Mr. Kirkham believed there may have been some manipulation of the figures in the documents.

28The appellant was then asked to provide a complete and original copy of bank statements from November 2024 to June 2025. In response, the appellant provided bank statements showing “details for rent paid for parking for Navi Transport.” The bank statements evidenced monthly transfers from the appellant to Total Recycling Solutions for rent and transfers to a “Gagan Safety” – the appellant’s safety manager during that period. All other entries were redacted.

29When the Ministry requested complete, unredacted bank statements the appellant’s agent indicated that it would not provide them in order to “protect sensitive personal and third-party information in accordance with applicable privacy legislation.” The Ministry made no further requests.

30Singh testified that he paid rent as required to Total Recycling Solutions. He entered the parking agreement because he believed it to be a good business opportunity. He has customers in the area and is able to commute to the lot. Singh also testified that he did deliveries for Total Recycling in late 2025 and provided two invoices for work completed. He testified that none of the appellant’s clients were also AAM clients.

31In investigating the appellant, Mr. Kirkham discovered an Ontario company named “TRS Total Recycling Solutions” had been incorporated on September 15, 2025, with Singh named as the sole director/shareholder. In Mr. Kirkham’s view Singh’s incorporation of a company very similarly named to Total Recycling Solutions showed “further affiliation.”

32Singh testified that Amara Ahmad had spoken of wanting to sell her recycling business and equipment. He purposefully chose a name similar to her company in the hope that he could “make a deal” and, at some point, run the recycling business. This deal never transpired. In cross examination Singh rejected the suggestion that this incorporation demonstrates he is “closely tied” to both Ahmad and Minhas.

Not “related” under the Act

33The respondent suggests that there are sufficient links between the appellant and the cancelled carrier to find them “related” under the Act. I agree there are many links between the appellant, the cancelled carrier, and the third company, Total Recycling Solutions. It has not, however, been established that there were common officers or shared control and ownership as required under the Act to be considered related.

34The fact that two drivers who previously worked for the cancelled AAM carrier now work for the appellant do not, in my view, indicate shared control and ownership. There was no evidence they worked for both companies simultaneously or any shared payroll or shared management of these drivers.

35I do find the transfer of vehicles from AAM to the appellant somewhat more problematic. The respondent has not established that AAM had any direct control or operation of the vehicles after the transfer. It is the respondent’s position, however, that the paperwork provided, and evidence given is, in essence a ruse and the vehicles were gifted to the appellant. As a result, it is alleged AAM had indirect control and ownership over the appellant company. I do agree that the undated and pencilled in format of the document respecting AAM’s vehicle transfer in lieu of an outstanding debt makes the nature of the transaction somewhat questionable. However, I do not find this establishes control or ownership by AAM of the appellant.

36Even if I were to find this unconventional vehicle transfer was not a legitimate commercial transaction, in my view, the transfer of the vehicles on their own is not sufficient to establish the companies are related under the Act. Other cases in which there have been a transfer of vehicles and carriers were found to be “related” have other strong indicia of shared ownership/control such as common directors. Aside from highlighting different connections between the companies, the respondent has not effectively pointed to any other indicia of direct or indirect control and operation of the appellant by AAM.

37I also do not find that the appellant’s interactions with the third company Total Recycling Solutions rises to the level, either alone or in conjunction with the other evidence, of establishing the companies are related under the Act. As noted, this recycling company is connected to AAM by the fact that it was at one time co-owned by Minhas, the owner of AAM, and is now owned and operated by his wife Ahmad. The respondent points to an error in the company letterhead and allegedly unclear transactions with the appellant to assert this company, AAM and the appellant are related under the Act. In the respondent’s view the evidence establishes the companies are so closely tied there is shared ownership and control. I do not agree this evidence amounts to the appellant being related, under the Act, to AAM.

38As requested by the Ministry, the appellant provided a copy of its lease with Total Recycling Solutions, invoices from Total Recycling Solutions and proof of monthly rent payments. The fact that the appellant did not provide fully unredacted bank statements to the Ministry or that Total Recycling Solutions had an error in their invoice letterhead does not, on its own, lead me to conclude there are hidden transactions that amount to control and ownership by Ahmad or Minhas.

39Lastly, the fact that Singh had an interest in purchasing Total Recycling Solutions and incorporated a company with a similar name, establishes another potential link between the parties. It may, as the respondent submits, demonstrate that the companies are “closely tied” but, in my view, it provides no evidence of Ahmad or Minhas controlling or owning the appellant as required to be “related” under the Act.

40There are clear connections between the companies: hiring of two drivers from AAM, a transfer of vehicles and the appellant’s rental of parking space and work done for a recycling company with connections to Minhas. Nevertheless, in my view these links, even considered cumulatively, can not establish shared indirect control or ownership as required under the Act.

The Appellant’s Own Safety Record Does Not Warrant Cancellation

41The respondent submits that regardless of whether the AAM is considered “related” such that its safety record can be considered, the appellant’s safety record on its own establishes reason to believe it will not operate a commercial vehicle safely. As noted by counsel for the appellant, it was only the “affiliation” with AAM, and not the appellant’s safety record that was raised as a reason for cancellation in the Notice and the Order of cancellation issued to the appellant.

42Mr. Kirkham testified that the appellant’s Overall Violation Rating (“OVR”) was 16.6%. Based on the statistical chart in the Ministry manual provided by the respondent, this OVR places the appellant in the top safety level of CVOR holders. When asked to describe the appellant’s record Mr. Kirkham noted there were some concerning features such as an elevated “Out of Service” rating. Mr. Kirkham, however, candidly acknowledged that he had no concern with the appellant’s OVR but rather with its affiliation with AAM. In cross examination he again agreed that the appellant’s CVOR was not cancelled because of its own safety performance. In his testimony, Singh noted that in the past year his company has not accrued any convictions or violations.

43Based on the above, I find that the respondent has not established that the appellant’s safety record provides a basis for cancellation of the CVOR.

Based on “other information that the Registrar considers relevant” there is reason to believe the appellant will not operate safely or in accordance with legislation

44The respondent submits that if the appellant is not related under the Act to the cancelled carrier AAM and its own safety record does not establish reason to believe the appellant will not operate safely or in accordance with the legislation, the CVOR should be cancelled based on “other relevant information.” In its view the appellant’s connections with AAM and its dealings with the regulator provides reason to believe the appellant will not operate commercial vehicles safely or comply with the Act and regulations

45After careful consideration I find that the accumulated facts here, while not enough to establish the parties are “related” under the Act, establish a strong link between AAM and the appellant. In my view, that coupled with Singh’s efforts to minimize his connection to AAM and his insufficient responses to Ministry inquires is “relevant information” that gives the Registrar reason to believe the appellant will not operate safely or in accordance with the Act.

46I do not accept that Singh did not know the owner of the cancelled carrier Minhas was married to Ahmad, who the appellant had a close business relationship with. Singh and Ahmad signed a commercial lease the same year that Singh was employed by Minhas as a driver at AAM. I agree with the respondent that it is simply not credible that, at the time of the appellant’s show cause meeting with the Deputy Registrar in February 2025, Singh was unaware of the relationship between Minhas and Ahmad. The fact that Ahmad herself denied knowing her husband Minhas at this same meeting points to an effort by parties to obscure a connection between the companies. I also agree that the appellant, through the course of the respondent’s investigation, failed to provide all the documentation requested, such as complete bank statements, and, on one occasion, documentation (i.e., banking documentation provided in March 2025), appeared to have been manipulated.

47Carriers are required to fully comply with all regulatory and reporting requirements under the Act. The appellant attempting to obscure his relationship with a past carrier and not providing the respondent all requested documentation is relevant and provides an objective basis for the respondent to conclude, in the circumstances here, the appellant will not operate in accordance with the Act and legislation.

Issue B: Cancellation and Seizure is Not the Appropriate Outcome

48The Tribunal has the statutory discretion to consider an appellant’s circumstances and determine whether the public interest requires cancellation of the registration, as proposed in the NOP, or whether public safety considerations of the Act can be met through registration with conditions.

49As noted, the safety record of the appellant does not establish that it will not operate safely. Its rating is in the top safety level of all carriers provincially and, as Singh testified, there have been no convictions or violations in the past year. The corporate appellant, Singh’s livelihood, is a small carrier of two trucks with a good safety record.

50I have found that Singh was, at times, less than forthright in his responses to the respondent in the course of their investigation. In my view, that alone, in the circumstances here, does not warrant outright cancellation of the appellant’s registration. Progressive sanctions rather than full cancellation are appropriate. Both the appellant and the respondent suggested that, if conditions were to be considered, a fleet limitation was appropriate. I am persuaded to give the appellant an opportunity to demonstrate it can, with a fleet of one, operate safely and fully comply with the legislation.

Order

51The Tribunal substitutes its opinion for that of the registrar. The registration is reinstated with the following condition:

The appellant’s fleet is limited to one vehicle

This condition shall expire one (1) year from the date that the condition comes into effect.