Tribunals Ontario

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18172/ADLS

In the matter of an appeal from a suspension under s. 48.3 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8

Between:

Steven Sutherland Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION

PANEL: Dr. Peter Savage, M.D. Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES: For the Appellant: Steven Sutherland, Self-represented For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent P.C. Constable B. Spier

Heard by teleconference: March 16, 2026

Overview

1Steven Sutherland, the appellant, appeals from a 90-day administrative driver’s licence suspension (“ADLS”) of his driver’s licence under s. 48.3 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”). The ADLS was made on December 31, 2025 as a result of the appellant refusing to give breath sample as demanded by a police officer.

2The appellant’s ground of appeal as set out in his Notice of Appeal is that he is not the same individual to whom a demand was made under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada), (i.e. a case of mistaken identity).

ISSUE

3The issue to be determined at the hearing is whether the appellant is the same individual to whom a demand was made under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada), (i.e. a case of mistaken identity).

RESULT

4We confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence. For the reasons that follow, we find that the appellant has failed to establish that he is not the same individual to whom a demand was made under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada), (i.e. a case of mistaken identity).

LAW:

5A person whose driver’s licence has been suspended under s. 48.3 or s. 48.3.1 of the HTA may appeal the suspension to the Tribunal under section 50.1 of the HTA.

6Section 50.1(2)(a) of the HTA sets out the only grounds on which on a person may appeal a s. 48.3 suspension of their driver’s licence. The ground of appeal raised by the appellant is in s. 50.1(2)(a)(i), which provides that the Tribunal may set aside the suspension if:

…the person whose licence was suspended is not the same individual to whom a demand was made under section 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada)

7Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50.1(4) of the HTA, confirm the suspension or may order that the suspension be set aside.

8The appellant has the burden of proof in this appeal.

9Here, the appellant appealed on the grounds of mistaken identity as set out in 50.1(2)(a)(i) of the HTA.

ANALYSIS:

This is not a case of mistaken identity. The appellant is the same individual to whom a demand was made

10After considering the totality of the evidence, we find that the appellant has failed to establish he is not the same individual to whom a demand was made under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada) (i.e. a case of mistaken identity). Our reasons are as follows.

11The appellant admitted at the hearing that he was asked by the police to give a breath sample on December 30-31, 2025, he refused to do so, and his driver’s licence was suspended as a result for a period of 90 days.

12The appellant admitted at the hearing that he lives at the Whitby, Ontario address shown on the Notice to Registrar (the “NTR”), admitted that his date of birth is the same as his date of birth shown on the NTR, and admitted that when he was stopped by the police he was driving the motor vehicle described by make, model, V.I.N. number, and licence plate number shown on the NTR, filed.

13Police Constable Brett Spier testified that the vehicle the appellant was driving was stopped December 30, 2025.

14P.C. Spier testified that the appellant identified himself to P.C. Spier by his valid driver’s licence. The appellant’s drivers licence shows his name as Steven James Sutherland, and his name, residential address, and date of birth match those shown on the NTR, and match the testimony given by the appellant at the hearing about his name, address, date of birth. A copy of the appellant’s driver’s licence shown at the scene to P.C. Spier and later confiscated confirms the appellant’s name, address, and date of birth.

15P.C. Spier testified that a demand was made for a breath sample, that the appellant confirmed that he understood the demand, was given multiple chances to give the breath sample demanded and it was explained to the appellant that if he refused to give the breath sample, his driver’s licence would be suspended. P.C. Spier testified that the appellant maintained his refusal to give the breath sample following which he was arrested.

16Based on the admissions of the appellant set out above we find that it was the appellant who was asked for the breath sample and refused.

17This is corroborated by the testimony of P.C. Spier set out above, and the identity of the appellant as established by the copy of appellant’s driver’s licence, and the NTR, filed.

18Based on the admissions of the appellant, the evidence of P.C. Spier, and the records filed by the Registrar, it is clear from the evidence that a demand for breath sample was made on December 30-31, 2025, that the appellant is the person to whom the demand was made.

19The onus is on the appellant to prove that he is not the same individual to whom a demand was made under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada) (ie. a case of mistaken identity). The appellant’s testimony and evidence fall short of establishing this. To the contrary, the appellant’s admission and the documentary evidence filed establishes that the appellant is the same individual to whom a demand was made, and he refused to comply.

20Although the police notes which P.C. Spier testified were made after the demand was made appear to contain a mis-spelling of the appellant’s last name, the appellant said there were other errors in the paperwork following the demand, and the appellant stated that he should not have been stopped by the police at all, none of this information is relevant to the issue we must decide, specifically whether the appellant is the same person to whom a demand was made under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada).

21There is no question based on the appellant’s admissions, the documents before us, and the evidence of P.C. Spier that a breath sample was demanded of the appellant and that he refused to give it.

Conclusion

22For the reasons above, we find that the appellant has failed to establish that he is not the same individual to whom a demand was made under s. 320.28 of the Criminal Code (Canada) (ie. a case of mistaken identity).

ORDER

23We confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Dr. Peter Savage, M.D.

Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair