Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17567/CVOR

In the matter of an appeal under s. 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 refuse to issue a CVOR certificate pursuant to s. 17 of the Act.

Between:

2464947 Ontario Inc.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Caley Howard

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Aubrey Kaufman, Director (did not attend)

For the Respondent: Patrick Moore, Counsel

Court Reporter: Christine Rieck

Heard by Videoconference: December 16, 2025

OVERVIEW

12464947 Ontario Inc. (the “appellant”) appeal a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) to refuse to issue a CVOR certificate pursuant to s. 17 of the Act dated July 29, 2025 (the “refusal”).

ISSUES

2The issues in dispute are:

i. Whether the respondent has proven that it had grounds to refuse to issue a CVOR certificate to the appellant on the basis that the appellant is related, pursuant to s. 17 (4) of the Act, to a person whose CVOR certificate has previously been cancelled; and

ii. If so, whether the Tribunal should confirm, modify or set aside the refusal, pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Act.

RESULT

3The respondent has proven that the appellant is related to 2290205 Ontario Inc., which has had its CVOR certificate cancelled. Pursuant to s. 50(2), for the reasons set out below, I confirm the refusal.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Non-attendance of the appellant at the hearing

4Aubrey Kaufman, the director of the appellant, who filed the Notice of Appeal on behalf of the appellant, did not attend at the hearing, and no one else attended on behalf of the appellant.

5Rule 3.7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the “Rules”) requires a party to attend a hearing. Rule 3.7.1 provides that if a party, who has been given notice of a hearing in accordance with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”), does not attend their hearing within 30 minutes of the scheduled start time, the Tribunal may: a) proceed with the hearing in the absence of the party; and/or b) make any order it considers appropriate in the circumstances. In determining whether to proceed with the hearing in the absence of a non-attending party, the Tribunal will consider the reasons for the non-attendance.

6The hearing of this appeal was originally scheduled for December 9, 2025 at 9:30 am. By order dated November 29, 2025, the Tribunal granted the appellant an adjournment due to a conflict with Mr. Kaufman’s work obligations. The hearing was rescheduled to December 16, 2025 by way of the Notice of Videoconference Hearing that was sent to the parties on December 2, 2025. On December 10, 2025, the appellant filed a request to adjourn the videoconference hearing scheduled for December 16, 2025, again due to a work conflict. The Tribunal denied the adjournment request by way of order dated December 11, 2025.

7On the morning of December 16, 2025, Mr. Kaufman sent the Tribunal an email advising that he was unable to attend the hearing due to his work conflict, that he had been unable to find anyone to attend in his place, and that he understood the Tribunal would make a decision in his absence.

8When the appellant did not attend at 9:30 am, we waited the 30 minutes as required by the Rules. The respondent advised that it wished to proceed in the appellant’s absence.

9I find that the appellant had notice of the hearing in accordance with the SPPA because the Notice of Videoconference Hearing was sent Mr. Kaufman on December 2, 2025, by way of the email addresses that the Tribunal has on file. In addition, Mr. Kaufman acknowledged his awareness that the hearing was proceeding on December 16, 2025 in his email to the Tribunal.

10I found that the reasons for Mr. Kaufman’s non-attendance were fully considered by the Tribunal in the adjournment order of December 11, 2025. I further found that Mr. Kaufman’s email acknowledged his awareness that the Tribunal would make a decision in his absence and that he had decided not to attend the hearing on December 16, 2025 in any event.

11In these circumstances, I found that it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the appellant.

ANALYSIS

The appellant is related to 2290205 Ontario Inc.

12I find that the appellant is related to 2290205 Ontario Inc., which has had its CVOR certificate cancelled.

13Section 17(3)(a) of the Act provides that the Registrar may refuse to issue a CVOR certificate to an applicant if the applicant is related to a person whose CVOR certificate has been cancelled. Pursuant to s. 17(4)(d), an applicant and a person are related if they have or have had officers or directors in common or if they are or have been controlled, directly or indirectly, by the same shareholders.

14The respondent submits that the appellant is related to 2290205 Ontario Inc., because Mr. Kaufman is, or was, a director and officer of both corporations. The respondent relies on the corporate profile reports of the appellant and 2290205 Ontario Inc. and the Cancellation and Seizure Order, which cancelled the CVOR certificate of 2290205 Ontario Inc. as of July 6, 2023.

15The appellant did not deny, in its Notice of Appeal, that it was related to 2290205 Ontario Inc. The appellant made no submissions other than those in the Notice of Appeal.

16I find that the respondent has proven that the appellant is related to 2290205 Ontario Inc. The corporate profile reports for the two companies show that Mr. Kaufman has been the corporate director of 2290205 Ontario Inc. since November 28, 2023 and has been the corporate director, president and secretary of the appellant since May 30, 2015.

17I further find that the CVOR certificate of 2290205 Ontario Inc. was cancelled as of July 6, 2023, as demonstrated by the Cancellation and Seizure Order.

18Therefore, I find that the respondent has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant is related to a person whose CVOR certificate has been cancelled.

What is the appropriate sanction?

19I find that the respondent has proven that Mr. Kaufman was working with Armando Carreiro, also known as Herman Carreiro, Bonnie Cathcart and David Ottoway to use 2290205 Ontario Inc. to attempt to circumvent the cancellation of the CVOR certificates of 1032049 Ontario Inc. and 482733 Ontario Inc. Contrary to the submissions of the appellant, I find that Mr. Kaufman was not blameless in the cancellation of the CVOR certificate of 2290205 Ontario Inc. Given Mr. Kaufman’s direct involvement in attempts to circumvent sanctions applied to other corporations, I find that granting a CVOR certificate with conditions would not adequately protect the public. Therefore, while I am not bound to accept the outcome proposed by the respondent, I find that the appropriate result is the refusal of the appellant’s application for a CVOR certificate.

20Section 50(2) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Minister or Registrar.

21The respondent submits that s. 17(3) of the Act functions as an anti-avoidance provision. This provision is designed to prevent commercial vehicle operators with poor safety records, including those who have had their CVOR certificate cancelled, from sidestepping enforcement of the Act by incorporating a new company and obtaining a new CVOR certificate.

22The respondent submits that the refusal should be confirmed. The respondent submits that it cancelled the CVOR certificate of 2290205 Ontario Inc. because it was the most recent in a series of corporations that were being used by Mr. Carreiro, to circumvents sanctions imposed on Mr. Carreiro’s corporations as a result of poor safety records. The respondent submits that the appellant applied for a CVOR certificate in a further attempt to circumvent the cancellation of 2290205 Ontario Inc. and four other connected corporations. Specifically, the respondent submits that when the CVOR certificates for Mr. Carreiro’s two corporations were cancelled, Mr. Carreiro attempted to side-step the sanctions by attempting to carry on business using CVOR certificates in the names of David Norman Ottaway Services Inc., 1000492856 Ontario Inc. and 2290205 Ontario Inc. The respondent relies on the testimony of Daniel Armstrong, Senior Regulatory Compliance Administrator for the Ministry of Transportation, as well as corporate profile reports, carrier safety record reviews, cancellation and seizure orders, and the Ministry records relating to various corporations.

23The appellant submits, in the package of documents included with its Notice of Appeal, that Mr. Kaufman is willing to resign as director of 2290205 Ontario Inc. as a condition of the appellant being granted a CVOR certificate. The appellant further submits that Mr. Kaufman has disassociated himself from the corporations and individuals indicated in the refusal, and that the appellant will operate in an independent and compliant manner in the future. In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on an affidavit sworn by Mr. Kaufman on August 10, 2025, the letter of disassociation dated June 27, 2025, the letter of compliance dated June 27, 2025 and a business plan.

Cancellation of Mr. Carreiro’s CVOR certificates

24Mr. Armstrong testified that, on February 7, 2023, the CVOR certificate for 482733 Ontario Inc. was cancelled due to its poor safety record and because the corporation had dissolved in 2016 upon the death of its only corporate officer, Harold Winick. Mr. Armstrong’s investigation revealed that the company was being operated by Mr. Carreiro. I find that this testimony was supported by the Carrier Safety Record Review of 482733 Ontario Inc. and the Cancellation and Seizure Order dated February 7, 2023.

25Mr. Armstrong went on to testify that on March 15, 2023, the CVOR certificate of 1032049 Ontario Inc and three related companies, including David Norman Ottaway Services Inc., were suspended due to a failure to have proper insurance, among other reasons. This was supported by the Suspension and Seizure Order dated March 15, 2023. Mr. Armstrong testified that the CVOR certificates were eventually cancelled as the companies continued to operate during the suspension period. The corporate profile report of 1032049 Ontario Inc. confirms that the directors are Herman Carrreiro and Laura Paula Carreiro. Mr. Armstrong testified that Laura Paula Carreiro is Mr. Carreiro’s daughter.

26Mr. Armstrong further testified that the sole director and officer of David Norman Ottaway Services Inc. was David Ottaway. However, the carrier record from the Ministry’s database for David Norman Ottaway Services Inc. had an email address and phone number that Mr. Armstrong identified as belonging to Mr. Carreiro. It also indicated that the company’s registered address was the same as that of both 482733 Ontario Inc. and 1032049 Ontario Inc., the two corporations operated by Mr. Carreiro. Mr. Armstrong said that his investigation revealed that Mr. Ottaway had been employed by Mr. Carreiro as a commercial driver and that David Norman Ottaway Services Inc. was being used by Mr. Carreiro to circumvent the cancellation of his own companies’ CVOR certificates.

Connection between Mr. Carreiro, Mr. Ottaway and 2290205 Ontario Inc.

27Mr. Armstrong testified that the CVOR certificate of 2290205 Ontario Inc. was cancelled on July 6, 2023 for failure to hold the required insurance and because of its affiliation with the above-noted corporations operated by Mr. Ottaway and Mr. Carreiro.

28The corporate profile reports of 2290205 Ontario Inc. as of various dates show that David Ottaway was the director and officer of the corporation between May 23, 2023 and November 28, 2023, at which time Mr. Kaufman became the sole director and officer. A Purchase of Business Agreement between 2290205 Ontario Inc. and 1000238727 Ontario Inc. purports to sell 2290205 Ontario Inc. on May 23, 2023 to 1000238727 Ontario Inc. (the “agreement”). The agreement was signed by Mr. Kaufman on behalf of 2290205 Ontario Inc. and Mr. Ottaway on behalf of 1000238727 Ontario Inc.

29The appellant’s written submissions, submitted with the Notice of Appeal, indicate that Mr. Ottaway was unable to meet his obligations as set out in the agreement, including making the required payments, and so Mr. Kaufman either retained or re-took possession of the company. Mr. Armstrong testified that a copy of the agreement was provided by Mr. Kaufman to the respondent in response to the Notice to Refuse to Issue a CVOR Certificate dated June 25, 2025. Mr. Armstrong testified that he was not satisfied with Mr. Kaufman’s explanation that the problems with the CVOR certificate of 2290205 Ontario Inc. originated during the period of a few months when the company had been sold to Mr. Ottaway.

30One of the problems Mr. Armstrong identified with Mr. Kaufman’s explanation was that it conflicted with various memoranda in the respondent’s file respecting 2290205 Ontario Inc. The memoranda indicated as follows:

i. On May 12, 2023, Herman Carreiro called to inquire about transferring the corporation’s CVOR certificate to a corporation called Vehicle Donor Ltd. Mr. Armstrong testified that he discovered that Vehicle Donor Ltd. Is owned by Mr. Kaufman’s father;

ii. On July 6, 2023, Mr. Ottaway, who was the director at the time, made an inquiry related to the notice to cancel the CVOR. The caller ID showed that the call was from the phone number known to belong to Mr. Carreiro;

iii. On July 22, 2024, over a year after the corporations CVOR certificate was cancelled, Mr. Carreiro called again claiming that the sale to Mr. Ottaway never went through and that he wished to renew the corporation’s CVOR certificate;

iv. On October 15, 2024, there is a reference to an email from Mr. Carreiro asking for information on getting a new CVOR certificate for the corporation; and

v. On December 11, 2024, there is a phone call from Mr. Kaufman asking if he can apply for a new CVOR.

31I find that the records of the inquiries relating to 2290205 Ontario Inc. during this period show that Mr. Carreiro was involved in the operation of 2290205 Ontario Inc. at all material times: before the purported sale to Mr. Ottaway’s corporation; during Mr. Ottaway’s tenure as director; and after the company reverted to Mr. Kaufman.

Connection between Mr. Carreiro, Bonnie Cathcart and 2290205 Ontario Inc.

32Mr. Armstrong testified that 1000492856 Ontario Inc., owned by Bonnie Cathcart, who had previously been employed as a commercial driver by 1032049 Ontario Inc., applied for a CVOR certificate. Her application was refused on May 31, 2023 because of her known association with 1032049 Ontario Inc., one of Mr. Carreiro’s corporations. Mr. Armstrong testified that the respondent believed that Ms. Cathcart applied for the CVOR certificate for the purpose of enabling Mr. Carreiro to circumvent the cancellation of the CVOR certificate of 1032049 Ontario Inc.

33Mr. Armstrong testified that Mr. Kaufman and 2290205 Ontario Inc. were associated with 1000492856 Ontario Inc. as his investigation revealed four vehicles that were owned by 1000492856 Ontario Inc. and plated to 2290205 Ontario Inc. The relevant Service Ontario registrations for these vehicles showed that the registrations occurred on May 8 and May 12, 2023, prior to the sale of 2290205 Ontario Inc. The documents show that Mr. Carreiro attended at Service Ontario to facilitate the registration of the vehicles, and that Mr. Kaufman signed authorizations agreeing that the plates owned by 2290205 Ontario Inc. could be affixed to the vehicles in question. Ms. Cathcart, similarly, signed authorizations agreeing that the plates could be attached to the vehicles owned by 1000492856 Ontario Inc.

34I find that the above transactions show that Mr. Carreiro, Ms. Cathcart and Mr. Kaufman worked together to provide a fleet of vehicles to 2290205 Ontario Inc. in May 2023, prior to May 23, 2023, when Mr. Ottaway became the director of 2290205 Ontario Inc.

35I further find that these transactions contradict the appellant’s submission, in its Notice of Appeal, that the reasons for the refusal can all be blamed on Mr. Ottaway’s brief tenure as a director of 2290205 Ontario Inc. because Mr. Kaufman was working with Mr. Carreiro and Ms. Cathcart, prior to the sale of 2290205 Ontario Inc. to Mr. Ottaway’s company.

Mr. Kaufman’s affidavit, letter of disassociation and business plan

36The appellant submitted an affidavit, a letter of disassociation and a business plan in support of its Notice of Appeal.

37Mr. Kaufman’s affidavit states that he has ceased his business association with Mr. Ottaway, Mr. Carreiro, 1032049 Ontario Inc. or David Norman Ottaway Services Inc. and promises that he will not associate with them in the future. The appellant also submitted a letter dated June 27, 2025 (the “letter of disassociation”), which contains similar promises, and which was sent to the respondent in response to the notice of refusal.

38I give little weight to the affidavit of Mr. Kaufman, sworn August 10, 2025, because the respondent did not have the opportunity to test Mr. Kaufman’s evidence through cross-examination. In addition, I find that the affidavit only attests to Mr. Kaufman’s intention to have no further association with Mr. Ottaway, Mr. Carreiro, 1032049 Ontario Inc. or David Norman Ottaway Services Inc. The affidavit does not speak to Mr. Kaufman’s involvement in the alleged attempts by Mr. Carreiro to circumvent prior sanctions.

39The letter of disassociation states that Mr. Kaufman sold 2290205 Ontario Inc. to Mr. Ottaway in May 2023, and was later required to repossess the corporation and insert himself as director due to Mr. Ottaway’s failure to pay the full purchase price. The letter blames Mr. Ottaway for the damage done to the company’s CVOR profile, which Mr. Kaufman asserts occurred after the sale to Mr. Ottaway and without his direct involvement or oversight.

40I give little weight to the letter of disassociation because it conflicts with Mr. Armstrong’s testimony and the respondent’s documents. Specifically, it conflicts with the evidence that Mr. Carreiro was involved in the operation of 2290205 Ontario Inc. before the sale, during Mr. Ottaway’s tenure as director, and after Mr. Kaufman became a director again.

41The business plan set out some details respecting how Mr. Kaufman intended to conduct business in compliance with the Act if the appellant were granted a CVOR certificate.

42Mr. Armstrong testified that there was nothing problematic in the business plan. However, given Mr. Kaufman’s involvement with Mr. Carreiro in the past, the respondent remains concerned that the CVOR certificate the appellant applied for is yet another attempt by Mr. Carreiro to circumvent the cancellation of his own CVOR certificates, and that Mr. Carreiro has demonstrated that he cannot operate a commercial vehicle safely.

43I considered the conditions proposed by the appellant, specifically that it would operate independently and in compliance with the Act in the future, and that Mr. Kaufman would resign as a director of 2290205 Ontario Inc. The respondent submits that Mr. Kaufman’s involvement in Mr. Carreiro’s attempts to circumvent the cancellation of his companies’ CVOR certificates makes it inappropriate to grant the appellant a CVOR certificate with conditions.

44I find that the respondent has proven that Mr. Kaufman was working with Mr. Carreiro, Ms. Cathcart and Mr. Ottoway to use 2290205 Ontario Inc. to attempt to circumvent the cancellation of the CVOR certificates of 1032049 Ontario Inc. and 482733 Ontario Inc. Mr. Kaufman was not blameless in the cancellation of the CVOR certificate of 2290205 Ontario Inc., as submitted by the appellant. Given Mr. Kaufman’s direct involvement in attempts to circumvent sanctions applied to other corporations, I find that granting a CVOR certificate with conditions would not adequately protect the public. Therefore, I find that the appropriate result is the refusal of the appellant’s application for a CVOR certificate.

Conclusion

45I find that the appellant is related to 2290205 Ontario Inc., which had its CVOR certificate cancelled. I find that granting a CVOR certificate to the appellant, with or without conditions, is not appropriate in light of my findings. I confirm the respondent’s refusal to issue a CVOR certificate to the appellant.

ORDER

46Pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Act, I confirm the respondent’s refusal to issue a CVOR certificate to the appellant.