Licence Appeal Tribunal
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Colin Osterberg
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17530/TSSEA
Case Name: Hajjar v. Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant: Eric Sabbah, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Patrick Moore, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On February 9, 2026, the appellant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated January 8, 2026 (“Decision”).
2In the Decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s appeal without a hearing on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
3The 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.
4The appellant alleges as grounds for reconsideration that the Tribunal committed material breaches of procedural fairness under Rule 18.2(a) and that Decision contains errors of law such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the errors not been made under Rule 18.2(b).
5The appellant requests that the Tribunal set aside the Decision, determine that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider various issues, stay the dismissal order pending determination of the request for reconsideration, proceed with the hearing of the appeal and stay the “suspension cancellation” of the appellant’s tow driver certificate.
RESULT
6The appellant has failed to establish that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness.
7The appellant has failed to establish that 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.
ANALYSIS
8The 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 must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
9The primary finding of the Tribunal in its Decision is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal with respect to the cancellation of a tow driver’s certificate under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, Sched. 3 (the “Act”).
10In its submissions filed in respect of the reconsideration, the appellant does not specifically dispute the Tribunal’s findings with respect to jurisdiction under the Act, but rather argues that the Tribunal committed the following errors of law:
a. it failed to apply the primacy of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the “Human Rights Code”);
b. it failed to determine accommodation obligations once disability was raised;
c. it misapprehended the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to apply quasi-constitutional legislation;
d. it failed to meaningfully address material submissions; and
e. it denied meaningful access to justice for a person with a disability.
11In my view, the Tribunal correctly sets out the law with respect to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hearing appeals under the Act in paragraphs 13-18 of the Decision and finds that the Act does not provide for appeals with respect to the Director’s decision to suspend or cancel a tow driver’s certificate. Further, the Tribunal concludes in paragraph 18 of the Decision that s. 16(9) of the Act specifically provides there is no right to appeal a decision of the Director to cancel a tow driver’s certificate. On that basis the Tribunal finds that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the Director’s decision to cancel the appellant’s tow driver’s certificate.
12In its request for reconsideration, the appellant fails to establish that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness and fails to set out any error in the Tribunal’s interpretation of the law such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the errors not been made. Instead, the issues that the appellant raises are ones which are only relevant in matters over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction.
Human Rights Code and consideration of disability
13With respect to the fact that the Human Rights Code prevails over other legislation, including the Act, and whether the Tribunal failed to determine accommodation requirements once disability was raised, the appellant fails to set out how the application of the Human Rights Code might result in the Tribunal having jurisdiction over decisions of the Director to cancel a tow driver’s certificate in the face of the provisions of the Act set out by the Tribunal in the Decision.
14The cases cited by the appellant in its reconsideration submissions all stipulate that Tribunals are required to apply the Human Rights Code only when deciding matters within their jurisdiction. The appellant provides no authority for the proposition that application of the Human Rights Code may result in a finding of jurisdiction where no such jurisdiction has been granted in the relevant legislation.
15The Tribunal uses similar reasoning in paragraph 36 of its decision in respect of the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms where there is no jurisdiction granted to a Tribunal. Specifically, the case of R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22 (“R. v. Conway”) established that an administrative tribunal is a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) but the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide whether a person’s Charter rights have been breached is dependant on the tribunal having jurisdiction to hear an appeal and to grant a remedy under its authorizing statute.
16In my view, the Human Rights Code may be considered by the Tribunal when exercising an authority over which it has jurisdiction, but like the application of the Charter, it may not be used to create jurisdiction in the Tribunal where the underlying statute provides no such jurisdiction. In other words, an alleged breach of the Human Rights Code, or a failure to consider an applicant’s disability, does not impart upon the Tribunal jurisdiction to consider an appeal of the Director’s decision where such jurisdiction is otherwise absent.
17Further, although the appellant submits that it raised disability in this appeal and that the Tribunal has a duty to accommodate, the appellant does not specify what accommodations were required that were not provided, why a determination of the accommodations required by the appellant’s disability are required for the determination of the jurisdictional issue, or how the failure to address these issues results in a breach of procedural fairness which is material to jurisdiction, or might have caused the Tribunal to come to a different result with respect to its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
18I find that the appellant has failed to establish the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness with respect to the application of the Human Rights Code or its duty to accommodate.
19I find that the appellant has failed to establish 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 with respect to the application of the Human Rights Code or its duty to accommodate.
Misapprehension of jurisdiction
20With respect to the allegation that the Tribunal misapprehended its jurisdiction to apply constitutional and quasi-constitutional legislation, the appellant alleges that the Tribunal conflated the issue as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a merits appeal of the cancellation order and whether the Tribunal is required to apply the Human Rights Code within the proceeding it was already conducting. In particular, the appellant alleges that, by hearing a motion as to whether it has jurisdiction to determine the appeal, the Tribunal has assumed jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
21In my view, the appellant’s argument has no merit. The fact that the Tribunal is taking submissions with respect to its jurisdiction to determine an appeal does not result in it having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal such that it may apply the Human Rights Code or the Charter in order to effectively assume jurisdiction over the subject matter of the appeal. That is exactly what the Court in Mitanidis v. Ontario (Transportation), 2024 ONSC 5879, decided Tribunals cannot do and is contrary to the law as set out in R. v. Conway.
22In my view, the Decision correctly rejects the appellant’s argument on this point and correctly sets out the law in paragraph 36 of the Decision. I find there to be no error of law in the Decision in this regard, no error of law such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the errors not been made, and no procedural unfairness.
Failure to address submissions
23The appellant alleges that the Decision does not meaningfully engage with the appellant’s arguments regarding:
a. Human Rights Code primacy;
b. the duty to accommodate;
c. procedural fairness;
d. the distinction between appeal rights and the obligation to apply quasi-constitutional legislation within an existing proceeding; and
e. the right to meaningful access to justice for a person with a disability.
24The appellant does not set out in its materials the materiality of these issues or how the resolution of those issues in the appellant’s favour are such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. The appellant presents no basis for suggesting that these issues have any impact on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal with respect to the decision of the Director in this case.
25I find that the appellant has failed to establish the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness with respect to the alleged failure to address submissions.
26I find that the appellant has failed to establish 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 with respect to the alleged failure to address submissions.
Denial of access to justice
27With respect to the allegation that the Tribunal denied the appellant meaningful access to justice, the appellant argues that in failing to consider the above issues, the Tribunal closed its file without engaging with the appellant’s disability. In my view, this submission adds nothing to the previous arguments of the appellant and simply reiterates those submissions. The appellant raises no concerns with respect to the procedure employed by the Tribunal with respect to the determination of the jurisdictional issue and for the same reasons outlined above I find that there is no merit to the appellant’s bald statement that it was denied access to justice.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
28The appellant has failed to establish that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness.
29The appellant has failed to establish that 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.
30The request for reconsideration is dismissed.
31The Decision is confirmed.
Colin Osterberg
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: June 11, 2026