Gagandeep Singh Sidha v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2026 CanLII 6209

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17702/HTA

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:

Gagandeep Singh Sidha

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Avril A. Farlam

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Gurasish Pal Singh, Counsel

For the Respondent: Sidra Saeed, Student-at-Law

HEARD: By Teleconference December 1, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Gagandeep Singh Sidha (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to suspend the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”) for a period of 90 days from September 4, 2025 as set out in the Registrar’s letter dated September 2, 2025.

2At the beginning of the hearing, the Registrar confirmed that the suspension was made under s. 47(1)(g) of the HTA.

3The Registrar also confirmed that the burden of proof in this appeal is on the Registrar.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

Confidentiality Order Requested

4At the beginning of the hearing, pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules (the “Rules”), the Registrar requested an order to limit public access to pages 6, 9, 10, and 11 of the Registrar’s documentary submissions on the basis that these specific pages contain information relating to an ongoing police investigation that is still ongoing and some of this information could compromise the ongoing investigation and adversely affect some persons referred to in those pages.

5The appellant did not object to an order removing those pages from the public record.

6Having reviewed those pages, I find that they contain information relating to an ongoing police investigation.

7As a result, on consent of both parties, and pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Rules, I ordered that pages 6, 9, 10, and 11 of the Registrar’s documentary submissions at this hearing be excluded from the public record because they involve matters of public security.

Clarification of Issue in this Hearing

8The appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated September 15, 2025 indicates the appellant appealed from the Registrar’s decision made September 2, 2025 suspending the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence (“licence”). The Notice of Appeal attached the Registrar’s letter to the appellant about this dated September 2, 2025.

9The Registrar filed a letter from the Registrar dated October 10, 2025 to the appellant clarifying that the period of suspension is changed and that effective October 14, 2025, the suspension set out in the letter dated September 2, 2025 has come to an end and the appellant’s licence is downgraded to Class G.

10Appellant’s counsel confirmed that the appellant wished to continue with this hearing to appeal the suspension. The Registrar had no objection and the hearing proceeded on this basis.

ISSUE

11The issue in this appeal is whether the Registrar has established sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the HTA.

RESULT

12For the reasons set out below, pursuant to s. 50(2) of the HTA, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

LAW

13Under s. 47(1)(b) and (g) of the Act, the Registrar has the authority to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any sufficient reason not referred to in 47(1)(d), 47(1)(e), or 47(1)(f) of the HTA.

14The Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar, after a hearing, under s. 50(2) of the Act.

ANALYSIS

15I find that the Registrar has satisfied the burden to establish that there is sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 47(1)(g) of the HTA for the following reasons.

16One of the fundamental purposes of the HTA is to ensure the public’s safety on highways. See: British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), 1999 CanLII 646 (SCC) at para 26-28; Mitanidis v. Ontario (Transportation), 2024 ONSC 5879; Adam Giffen v. Ontario (Minister of Transportation), 2013 ONSC 7461 at para 33.

17Ensuring the public’s safety on highways is in my view sufficient reason for the Registrar to suspend a driver’s licence within the meaning of s. 47(1)(g) of the HTA.

18Documentation presented by the Registrar at the hearing establishes that the Registrar had reason to believe on September 2, 2025 that the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during the Class A testing and/or training processes. I am satisfied that the testing process was tainted by a payment made by a person to the appellant’s examiner in exchange for a favourable test result.

19The Registrar’s documentary evidence before me establishes that out of concern for public safety, written information was provided to the Registrar by the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) in August, 2025 that the OPP-Serious Fraud Office, as a result of an ongoing criminal investigation regarding potential bribery related to the examination process for Class A commercial driver’s licence, and that the OPP had reasonable grounds to believe that some 250 individuals may have fraudulently obtained their Clas A commercial driver’s licence. The Registrar notified the appellant on September 2, 2025 that the Ministry of Transportation has reason to believe that the appellant’s Class A licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during the Class A testing process, and that this undermined the confidence of the Ministry of Transportation in the appellant’s ability and intention to drive safely. As a consequence, the appellant’s licence was suspended for a period of 90 days from September 4, 2025. This was later shortened by the Registrar to October 14, 2025 in correspondence October 10, 2025.

20Further, written communication from the OPP indicates that following an extensive investigation, the OPP has reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence through a fraudulent scheme in which the appellant’s personal identifying information and photograph was sent to commercial examiners before the appellant attended for his test, giving the appearance that it had been arranged for the appellant to be tested by an examiner who appeared to be participating in the bribery scheme.

21As a result of the documents and information provided to the Registrar from the OPP, the Registrar found that there was on September 2, 2025 reason to believe that the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during the Class A testing process, and made the decision to temporarily suspend the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence. The appellant was notified by letter dated September 2, 2025. By letter dated October 10, 2025 the appellant was advised that the suspension would end on October 14, 2025 and advised that he must complete further testing if he would like to upgrade to a Class A licence.

22The appellant did not attend the hearing or testify but was represented by counsel who made submissions.

23In summary, the appellant submitted that he passed the testing given to him, that he was not involved in or aware of any dishonesty during his Class testing and/or training processes, that the dishonesty amounts to speculation at this point in time, and he is being unfairly penalized for something he was unaware of and did not knowingly participate in. I disagree with the submissions of the appellant.

24It is not necessary for the Registrar to establish that the appellant participated in any dishonest training and/or testing process.

25Section 31(a) of the HTA makes it clear that the purpose of the legislation and the corresponding mandate of the Registrar is to protect the public by ensuring that the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely.

26I am satisfied that the evidence presented by the Registrar before me establishes on that the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during the Class A testing process.

27Although the appellant submits that he should not be punished for alleged wrongdoing by others that he was unaware of, he passed the testing, and is a safe driver, it is not necessary that the Registrar establish knowledge or participation in the dishonesty by the appellant.

28The Registrar need not establish that the appellant, or any other person, had committed any conduct that meets the standard of proof of criminal conduct under the Criminal Code. I agree with the Registrar’s submissions that this burden has been met.

29Whether or not the conduct of any person alleged to be involved in the scheme of being investigated by the OPP rises to the level of criminal conduct will be determined in another forum, not by me.

30From the evidence before me, I find that the Minister has established that on September 2, 2025, it was more likely than not that the appellant’s licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during the Class A testing process.

31Although the appellant submits he requires his licence in order to earn a living as a truck driver and the suspension on September 2, 2025, if confirmed, will adversely affect his future employment, this concern is speculative.

32While I acknowledge that a commercial driver’s licence may be very important to the appellant, my decision must be based on the reasonableness of the Minister’s decision in the interests of public safety as of September 2, 2025 when the Minister’s decision was made.

33I accept that the examination process, as set out in the Regulation, is a fundamental part of the process in granting the appellant’s licence. Once information has been given by a credible source, here the OPP, that the process has been compromised, then there is a reasonable basis for the Minister to conclude, in the interests of protecting the safety of the public on highways, that the appellant’s licence was likely obtained by dishonesty and the testing can no longer be relied on.

Conclusion

34I find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence and I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ORDER

35For the reasons set out above, pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Act, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.