Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18200/MED

In the matter of an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Alejandro Roman-Pena

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Rebecca Hines

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Alejandro Roman-Pena

For the Respondent:

Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

HEARD: By way of written submissions

BACKGROUND

1Alejandro Roman-Pena (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend his Class G licence for medical reasons effective November 27, 2022, pursuant s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) after the Registrar received an unsolicited Medical Condition Report.

2On December 18, 2025, after receiving medical documentation the Registrar sent the appellant a letter indicating that his case had been approved. However, because the appellant had been unlicensed for a period of greater than three years at the time the suspension was lifted his G licence was cancelled, and he was reclassified as a novice driver pursuant to s. 29(1) of Ontario Regulation 340/94 (the “Regulation”).

3A case conference was held on February 13, 2026. Prior to the case conference, the Registrar brought a motion seeking to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear it because the circumstances do not fall under permitted grounds for appeal under the Act. I ordered that the matter proceed to a motion hearing and provided the parties with deadlines to file written submissions to address whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction.

ISSUE

4I have been asked to decide whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

RESULT

5I find that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appellant’s appeal is dismissed without a hearing.

ANALYSIS

6Section 3(1) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, c.12 Schedule G (the “LAT Act”) empowers the Tribunal to hold hearings and perform other duties that are assigned to it by or under any act or regulation.

7Section 4.6 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990. Ch.22 provides the Tribunal to make rulings enabling a tribunal to dismiss a proceeding.

8The Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the “Rules”) apply to this proceeding. Under Rule 3.4(b) the Tribunal may dismiss an appeal without a hearing if the appeal relates to matters that are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

9Section 50(1) of the Act, states:

Every person aggrieved by a decision of the Minister made under subsection 32(5) for which there is a right of appeal pursuant to a regulation made under clause 32(14)(n) or a decision of the Registrar under section 17 or 47 may appeal the decision to the Tribunal. 2002, c. 18 Sched. P, s. 17.

10Section 50(2) of the Act provides the Tribunal with authority to confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Minister or Registrar under subsection (1) or (1.0.1). 2024, c. 27, Sched. 8, s. 10.

11The Registrar argues that this Tribunal’s jurisdiction is derived exclusively from statute. Further, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the appeal is not statutorily authorized. It submits that the Tribunal’s authority to hear appeals under the Act is limited to those matters set out in s. 50(1).

12The Registrar asserts that i) Section 17 does not apply because the appellant is not interested in a CVOR certificate; ii) Section 47 does not apply because the appellant’s driver’s licence is no longer suspended; and iii) Section 32.5(b)(i) does not apply because there was no condition imposed or a change of class as a result of an examination prescribed under s. 25(1) of the Regulation. It submits that because the suspension of the appellant’s licence has been lifted there is no longer a decision to appeal pursuant to s. 50(1) and (2) of the Act. Finally, it argues that the requirement for the appellant to re-apply for his licence as a novice driver is a mandatory requirement pursuant to s. 29(1) of the Regulation and is not a decision of the Minister. Therefore, this is a not a decision which is subject to discretion or appeal.

13The appellant submits that he has been licenced in Ontario since 1988 and has maintained a record free of infractions since 2008. He argues that the three-year validity requirement set out in s. 29(1) of the Regulation does not apply to his case because he was medically cleared to have his Class G licence reinstated on October 16, 2025, which was 42 days prior to the three-year deadline (November 27, 2022). He relies on a medical report and my chart record confirming the appointment and report date. He submits that he acted with due diligence and had no control over the administrative delay on behalf of the doctor’s office, who faxed the report to the Ministry of Transportation in December 2025, after the deadline.

14The appellant argues that the Tribunal has jurisdiction pursuant to s. 50(1) of the Act which gives the Tribunal explicit authority to set aside the Registrar’s decision. He submits that to treat a veteran driver as a beginner due to a transmission delay despite medical proof of fitness to drive on October 16, 2025, is an unreasonable result. He submits that the Tribunal should use its discretion pursuant to s. 50 of the Act and modify the reinstatement date of his G1 licence to October 16, 2025. The appellant requests that the Registrar’s motion be dismissed and that the matter proceed to a hearing on the merits.

15I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because it does not have authority to modify the date the Registrar reinstated the appellant’s licence. As highlighted above, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is derived from statute, and s. 50(1) of the Act does not provide the authority to appeal s. 29(1) of the Regulation or the legislature would have included it in this section. The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant indicated that he was appealing the suspension of his Class G driver’s licence issued by the Registrar on November 22, 2025, which was made pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Act, which is explicitly set out in s. 50(1) of the Act as grounds for an appeal.

16I also find that there is nothing in the Act or Regulation that gives the Tribunal the jurisdiction to modify or set aside the reinstatement date of a licence, or allowing appeals of licence cancellations or reclassifications made under s. 29(1) of the Regulation. I find that jurisdiction to make such an order must be explicitly set out by statute or regulation. I also find that the three-year validity rule set out in s. 29(1) of the Regulation is not a Minister’s decision but a requirement which is a mandatory provision which is not subject to appeal. There is also nothing in the Regulation which states that it is within the Tribunal’s discretion to waive this requirement.

Conclusion

17I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because of the assignment of the appellant’s class of licence as a novice G1 under s. 29(1) of the Regulation does not fall under s. 50(1) of the Act.

ORDER

18The Registrar’s motion that the Tribunal dismiss the appellant’s appeal on the ground that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter is granted.

19The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.