Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17985/MED

In the matter of a motion seeking to dismiss an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8. (the “Act”)

Between:

Brandon Kuhn

Appellant

and

Minister of Transportation

Respondent

MOTION DECISION

Adjudicators:

Dr. Kailey Minnings Laura Hodgson

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Brandon Kuhn, Self-Represented

For the Respondent:

Melissa Litrenta, Representative

Heard via teleconference: March 13, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Brandon Kuhn (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Minister of Transportation (the “respondent”) to extend his ignition interlock condition by six months as set out in correspondence dated October 30, 2025. He requests, among other things, that the Tribunal set aside the extension of the ignition interlock condition because it is based on unverified and unreliable data generated by a third party.

2The respondent filed a Notice of Motion with the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) on January 5, 2026, asking for the appeal to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

3In a decision dated March 12, 2026, Vice Chair Kovalchuk requested further submissions from the respondent and ordered the motion to be dealt with at the outset of the hearing scheduled for March 13, 2026.

ISSUE

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

RESULT

5We conclude that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

6The appellant’s driver’s licence was reinstated subject to an ignition interlock condition on July 24, 2024. The original condition end date was January 26, 2026. A letter to the appellant from the “Driver Improvement Officer”, dated October 30, 2025, set out that, a report from an ignition interlock service provider indicated “performance failure” in the form of a “second BAC failure”. The letter stipulated, “As a result you will not be eligible to have the ignition interlock condition removed from your licence until July 24, 2026.”

7It is the respondent’s position that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from this decision. The respondent submits that the only kind of action by the Minister or the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) that can be appealed to the Tribunal are decisions under section 32(5)(b)(i) or section 47(1). In its submission, the decision letter extending the appellant’s ignition interlock is not a decision made under either of these sections. The appellant submits that the decision changed the conditions of his licence, is captured under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act and can be appealed to this Tribunal.

8Not all decisions made by the respondent can be appealed to this Tribunal. Section 3(1) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, which created this Tribunal, states that it may only hold hearings and perform duties that are expressly assigned to it under an Act or regulation. If there is no explicit right in the statute or regulation to review an action or decision by the Minister, the Tribunal cannot do so on its own accord.

9Section 32 (5) (b) (i) states that:

The Minister may require an applicant for a driver’s licence or an endorsement or a person who holds a driver’s licence to submit to the examinations that are authorized by the regulations at the times and places required by the Minister and to meet other prescribed requirements, and the Minister may,

(b) in the case of a person who holds a driver’s licence,

(i) impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any conditions or endorsements or change the class or classes of driver’s licence held by the person, in accordance with the results of the examinations and other prescribed requirements.”

10Section 50(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions made by the Minister under s. 32(5) of the Act for which there is a right of appeal pursuant to Ontario Regulation 340/94. That regulation prescribes the kinds of decisions which may be appealed to the Tribunal and 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. The Divisional Court’s binding decision in Mitanidis v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation), 2024 ONSC 5879 at paragraphs 7-8 confirms this interpretation.

11The respondent submits that it has not changed the class of the appellant’s licence or imposed conditions in accordance with the results of the examinations under s. 32. Rather, the respondent submits, the decision to extend the appellant’s interlock condition was made under subsection 19 of O. Reg. 287/08 (the “Regulation”) – a regulation made under the authority of s. 57 of the Act.

12Subsection 19.3(3) of the Regulation indicates that the Registrar may extend the period during which the driver’s licence shall be subject to an interlock condition described in subsection (1) by six months if the Registrar is satisfied that,

a) the ignition interlock device has been tampered with;

b) the person has failed to comply with section 17; or

c) the person has failed to comply with the ignition interlock condition referred to in subsection 11 (1). O. Reg. 334/18, s. 7.

13We note that in prior email correspondence with the appellant, the Ministry had suggested that the “extension” decision was made under subsection 27(4) of the Regulation. That section deals with the extension of participation in the interlock program under certain conditions.

14It is unfortunate that the October decision letter to the appellant notifying him that he was “not eligible for condition removal”, failed to specify the exact regulatory basis for the decision. Regardless, we find both provisions referenced are made under the authority of s. 57 of the Act which sets out the parameters of the ‘Conduct Review Program’.

15We cannot find that the respondent’s decision to extend the appellant’s participation in the interlock program, either under ss. 19.3 (3) or 27 (4) of the Regulation, is a decision made under section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act. Section 32 (5) speaks to the Ministry requiring individuals to “submit to the examinations that are authorized by the regulations …and to meet other prescribed requirements” and subsection 32(5)(b)(i) permits the Ministry to impose conditions “in accordance with the results of the examinations”. The decision at issue here, that the appellant is not eligible for a condition removal, was not made in accordance with examination results and its prescribed conditions; instead, it was made in accordance with the Regulation relating to the Ministry’s Conduct Review Program (made under the authority of s.57 of the Act). We simply cannot conclude that, in deciding to extend the appellant’s participation in the interlock program, the respondent imposed conditions as contemplated in section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

16Although we sympathise with the appellant with respect to his frustration in seeking redress for what he submits to be a very unfair decision, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal. A decision made under the Regulation is not one which is appealable under s. 50(1) of the Act. As a result, an appeal of this decision in this forum is not available.

CONCLUSION

17We find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal and dismiss this appeal.

ORDER

18For the reasons set out above, we dismiss this appeal.

Released: March 27, 2026

Laura Hodgson

Adjudicator

_

Dr. K. Minnings

Adjudicator