Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17814/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:

Amrit Pal Singh

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR:

Kevin Kovalchuk

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Amrit Pal Singh, Appellant Gurinder Multani, Paralegal

For the Respondent:

Sidra Saeed, Articling Student

OVERVIEW

1Amrit Pal Singh (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to suspend his Class A driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

2The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1)(b) and (g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any sufficient reason not referred to in clauses 47(1)(d), 47(1)(e), or 47(1)(f) of the Act.

3The Registrar alleges in its letter to the appellant dated September 2, 2025 that there is reason to believe that the appellant’s Class A licence was obtained as a result of dishonesty during their Class A testing and/or training processes and that the appellant’s failure to abide by the regulatory framework that protects road safety in Ontario has undermined the confidence of the Ministry of Transportation in the appellant’s ability and intention to drive safely.

4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. The appellant submits that the manner in which the licence suspension took place raises serious concerns because the disclosure from the registrar is flawed and also because there is no direct evidence that the appellant obtained his licence as a result of dishonesty during the testing and/or training process. The appellant also submits that the Registrar has not established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant is unlikely to drive a commercial vehicle safely on highways.

5Pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Confidentiality Request

6The respondent made a request pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Licence Tribunal Rules (the “Rules”) that the public be denied access to pages 6, 9, and 10 of the Registrar’s submissions which were filed as Exhibit 6 to this hearing.

7The reason for the request was that the documents refer to an ongoing O.P.P. investigation into road safety in Ontario. In addition, these documents identified certain individuals by their initials as well as their place of employment which would make it reasonably easy for members of the public to identify the individuals.

8Counsel for the appellant did not object to the request.

9The Tribunal’s adjudicative records are generally open to the public, in accordance with the open court principle and s. 2(1) of the Tribunal Adjudicative Records Act, S.O. 2019, c. 7, Sch. 60 (“TARA”). However, s. 2(2) of TARA provides that the Tribunal may order that all or part of an adjudicative record be treated as confidential and not disclosed to the public if the Tribunal determines that matters contained in the record are of such a nature that the public interest or the interest of a person served by avoiding disclosure outweighs the desirability of adhering to the principle that the record be available to the public.

10Similarly, the Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, held that the following requirements must be met before placing limits on the open court principle:

i. court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest

ii. the order sought is necessary to prevent this serious risk to the identified interest because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent this risk; and

iii. as a matter of proportionality, the benefits of the order outweigh its negative effect.

11I agree with counsel for the respondent that the individuals identified by their initials as well as their place of employment could reasonably easily be identified by members of the public. This has the potential to compromise an ongoing investigation.

12I find that the documents referred to above involve a matter of public security more specifically the safety of road users. In this regard I rely upon Rule 13.1. In addition, because the documents deal with an ongoing investigation into road safety in Ontario, the public interest in road safety, outweighs the desirability of adhering to the principle that the documents be available to the public.

13Because disclosure of the documents could compromise an ongoing investigation into road safety in Ontario and because of the public interest in road safety, I find that both of these factors outweigh the desirability of adhering to the principle of making the documents public. I therefore Order on the consent of the parties, that pages 6, 9, and 10 of the Registrar’s submissions filed at the Hearing as Exhibit 6 shall be treated as confidential and not disclosed to the public.

Amendment to Notice of Appeal (‘NOA”)

14On October 10, 2025, the appellant received a letter from the Minister of Transportation (“MTO”) stating that the suspension period of his licence was changed to end on October 14, 2025, and that effective October 14, 2025, the appellant’s licence would be downgraded from a Class A(Z) to a Class G(Z).

At the hearing the appellant sought to amend the NOA to also appeal the downgrade of the licence.

15The respondent objected to the appellant’s request to amend the NOA on the grounds that the appellant had not been served a Notice of Motion pursuant to Rule 15.1. The respondent submitted that they were not prepared to argue a motion to amend the NOA as they had not been served with a Notice of Motion. Further the respondent submitted that because this hearing was adjourned from November 13, 2025, at the request of the appellant, the appellant had sufficient time between the November 13, 2025, adjournment to the hearing date of December 9, 2025, to serve a Notice of Motion to amend the NOA. Finally, the respondent submitted that was not prepared to deal with the downgrade without first having been served with a notice of motion.

16Rule 15.1 requires a party bringing a motion to file with the Tribunal a notice of motion using the from provided on the Tribunal’s website with the following information:

i. The decision or order that the party is requesting from the Tribunal:

ii. The authority being relied upon for the motion, including and statutes, regulations, Rules and authorities;

iii. The evidence in support of the motion: and

iv. The proposed format of the motion hearing.

17The moving party must serve the notice of motion and all supporting submissions on the other parties before filing with the Tribunal.

18The respondent submitted that the appellant did not adhere to the requirements of Rule 15.1.

19I advised the appellant that Tribunal file did not contain a Notice of Motion to amend the Notice of Appeal, nor did it contain a Certificate of Service for a Notice of Motion to amend the NOP.

20The appellant withdrew their request to amend the NOP.

ISSUES

21The issue in this appeal is: whether the Registrar has established sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 47 of the Act.?

RESULT

22Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has not satisfied its burden to establish sufficient evidence to suspend the appellants licence and I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Has the Registrar established that it has sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s licence pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Act.

23Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow I find that the Registrar has not satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reasons to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

24At the hearing the Registrar relied on s. 47(1) of the Act and argued that s. 31 of the Act conferred broad discretion on the Registrar to protect the public by ensuring that the privilege of driving is granted to and retained by persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely.

25I find that ensuring the public’s safety on highways is a significant factor in determining whether the Registrar has established “sufficient reason” for suspending a driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the Act.

26The Registrar submits that it received information form the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) that the appellant’s licence was obtained as a result of a fraud committed during the licensing testing process and in particular that the MTO received information from the OPP that the examiner who conducted the testing of the appellant had received payment in exchange for a favorable test result.

27The evidence comes from two OPP letters to the Registrar:

i. A letter dated August 19, 2025, states that the OPP has reasonable grounds to believe that approximately 250 individuals may have fraudulently obtained their Class “A” commercial driver’s licence.

ii. A letter dated October 17, 2025, states that the OPP was investigating a suspected bribery scheme involving Commercial Driver Examiners who were accepting cash payments in exchange for providing passing results to applicants during their commercial driver’s licence road examinations. The letter goes on to state that after an extensive investigation the OPP has reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant fraudulently obtained their Class “A” Ontario Drivers Licence in that way. Evidence including the fact that the appellant’s driver’s licence was sent to a complicit driver’s examiner and that that was a method of communication to ensure the applicants that were to benefit from the bribery scheme were examined by a complicit examiner and that a complicit examiner did the appellant’s driver’s test.

28The OPP’s letter of August 19, 2025, did not specifically reference the appellant, however the OPP’s letter of October 17, 2025, did specifically reference the appellant and contained an illegible copy of what was purported to be a chat message between a known driving instructor and a former driver examiner and alleged that the chat message included the transmission of a road test booking for the appellant with a driver examiner complicit in the briber scheme.. The OPP alleged that this method of communication was used to facilitate the sharing of applicant information with complicit driver examiners involved in the bribery scheme.

29The appellant submitted that these allegations do not prove on a balance of probabilities that the examiner was corrupt, that the appellant participated in a bribery scheme or that the appellant did not successfully complete his driver examination.

30The appellant gave evidence that he successfully completed a 116-hour AZ Tractor-trailer course with the Fateh Truck Driving School and he produced a Certificate from the school attesting to his successful completion of the program. He also testified that the driving school booked his road test after he completed the course. He met the examiner at the testing station, the examiner asked him for his G licence which the examiner inspected. The appellant testified that he never participated in any bribery scheme.

31On October 10, 2025, the appellant received a letter from the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) advising that his suspension would come to an end effective October 14, 2025, and that his Class A(Z) driver’s licence would be downgraded to a Class G(Z).

32The appellant submitted that the suspension of the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence although ended will continue to appear on the appellant’s driving record unless the suspension is set aside by the Tribunal and will prejudice the appellant’s employment opportunities.

33I agree with the appellant in this regard. The suspension of the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence continues to be an issue, and it does affect his driving record with the MTO.

34The Registrar submitted that the two letters from the OPP were enough to confirm that the appellant presented a high degree of risk to the driving public because the testing process by which he received his Class A licence was called into question by the OPP’s investigation.

35The Registrar did not present any evidence that the appellant provided a payment to a Commercial Driver Examiner in exchange for providing a passing result to the appellant during his commercial driver’s licence road examinations. Nor did the Registrar present any evidence that the appellant knowingly participated in the bribery scheme.

36I accept that the OPP had reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant fraudulently obtained his Class A driver’s licence as set out in its letter of October 3, 2025. However, reason to believe does not rise to the level of balance of probabilities which is the test to be applied to a suspension under s. 47(1) of the Act. I note that the letter of October 17, 2025, contained an illegible chat message purporting to book a road test examination between the appellant and a driver instructor complicit in the bribery scheme.

37If the Registrar does have further evidence, it was not presented to this tribunal.

38While as noted, I accept that the OPP had reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant fraudulently obtained his Class A driver’s licence I am nevertheless not satisfied that the evidence presented establishes on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s driver’s licence was obtained as a result of fraud or bribery resulting in a risk to public safety. I therefore find that the grounds for the suspension of the appellant’s Class A driver’s licence are not met, and I set aside the suspension.

Conclusion

39I find that the Registrar has not satisfied its burden to establish sufficient reason to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ORDER

40For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

41Pages 6, 9 ,10 of the Registrar’s submissions filed at the Hearing as Exhibit 6 shall be treated as confidential and not disclosed to the public.

Released: January 15, 2026

__________________________

Kevin Kovalchuk

Vice-Chair```