RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17643/HTA
Case Name: Amandeep Singh v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant: Vijayant Sood, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Alexander Qanbery, Articling Student
OVERVIEW
1On November 26, 2025, the appellant submitted a Notice of Motion with respect to the Tribunal’s order dated November 4, 2025 (“order”).
2The order addressed the appellant’s appeal of the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar” / “respondent”) to suspend his driver’s licence for a period of 90 days under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8.
3A teleconference hearing took place before the Tribunal on October 30, 2025. The appellant was self-represented. At paragraph 4 of the order, the Tribunal stated:
At the hearing, the appellant advised that he is withdrawing the appeal and is pursuing reinstatement of his Class A driver’s licence through re-testing. As a result, the Tribunal’s file is now closed.
4The appellant’s Notice of Motion asks the Tribunal to set aside the order and have the appeal proceed to be heard on its merits.
5The Tribunal responded to this motion in an order released on December 19, 2025. Briefly, the Tribunal found the appellant was, in effect, seeking a reconsideration of the order. The appellant’s request for reconsideration was allowed to proceed to be adjudicated, so long as a completed Request for Reconsideration form was filed and served in accordance with a deadline set out in the order. The appellant met this deadline.
6The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness;
b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; or
c) There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
7The appellant is relying on Rule 18.2(a) and Rule 18.2(c) to support his request for reconsideration. He is seeking an order to set aside his suspension, or, in the alternative, to grant a re-hearing of his appeal.
8The respondent is asking the Tribunal to dismiss the appellant’s request.
RESULT
9The appellant’s request for reconsideration is granted.
10Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the order is cancelled. A teleconference rehearing will be held before a new adjudicator.
ANALYSIS
11The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, or with the weight assigned to the evidence. The requestor—in this case, the appellant—must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
12As a preliminary comment, I note that, in reviewing the submissions provided with the appellant’s Request for Reconsideration form (dated December 24, 2025), there appears to be some confusion about the state of his request. Specifically, at paragraphs 6 and 7, the appellant states (emphasis added):
On November 26, 2025, the Appellant brought a motion to reopen the appeal. By Reconsideration Order dated December 17, 2025, the Tribunal allowed the request for reconsideration, subject to the Appellant remedying procedural deficiencies.
The Appellant now remedies those deficiencies through this Request for Reconsideration and accompanying submissions, seeking to set aside the suspension, the underlying record, and the associated notation of dishonesty.
13The remainder of the appellant’s submissions (under the header “Reconsideration – Merits Only”) starts with the following statement:
The Tribunal has already allowed the Appellant’s request for reconsideration and directed that any procedural deficiencies be cured. Those deficiencies have now been fully remedied. These submissions therefore address only the merits of the appeal.
14To clarify, the Tribunal’s December 17, 2025 order did not find the appellant had triggered any of the criteria for granting reconsideration under Rule 18.2. Rather, it stated that, so long as the appellant filed the proper form, his request for reconsideration could proceed to be adjudicated (at paragraph 5):
The appellant is, in effect, seeking a reconsideration of the order. Despite the procedural deficiencies detailed below, I will allow the appellant’s request for reconsideration to proceed to be adjudicated—so long as a completed Request for Reconsideration form is filed and served in accordance with the deadline ordered below.
15This two-stage process (i.e., screening and adjudicating a request) is laid out in the Tribunal’s Practice Direction – Request for Reconsideration at the Licence Appeal Tribunal. In sum, even though the appellant has now satisfied the procedural requirements under Rule 18.1, the Tribunal must still determine whether his request meets the standard under Rule 18.2.
16For the following reasons, I find the appellant has established grounds for reconsideration. As such, I am cancelling the order and granting a re-hearing.
Rule 18.2(a) – Procedural Fairness
17The appellant submits that procedural fairness requires the Tribunal to re-open his appeal, as his withdrawal “was not informed, was not voluntary, and resulted from confusion, misunderstanding, and language barriers.” In addition to an affidavit where he confirmed these difficulties, the appellant points to an e-mail he sent the Tribunal the day after the hearing. Specifically, on October 31, 2025, the appellant wrote to the Tribunal stating that his lack of legal representation and communication challenges led