Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-09-26 Docket: COA-25-CV-0001

Judges: Gillese, Favreau and Rahman JJ.A.

Between

Matthew J. Follwell Applicant (Appellant)

and

The King in the Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Transportation Respondent (Respondent)

Counsel

David Costa, for the appellant

Waleed Malik, for the respondent

Heard

September 22, 2025

On Appeal

On appeal from the order of Justice Loretta P. Merritt of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 4, 2024, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 6136.

Reasons for Decision

Background

[1] On December 14, 2022, the appellant, Matthew J. Follwell (the "appellant"), pleaded guilty to impaired driving in New York State (the "Incident"). He was given a conditional discharge.

[2] On February 9, 2023, Ontario's Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles notified the appellant that his driver's licence was suspended for one year pursuant to s. 41(1)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act"). That provision applied because Ontario and New York State have entered into a reciprocal agreement under s. 40 of the Act.

[3] The appellant brought an application to quash the suspension of his driver's licence.

Application Judge's Decision

[4] The application judge dismissed the application. She interpreted s. 41(1)(d) of the Act as suspending a person's licence if they are convicted of an offence designated in a reciprocal agreement with another jurisdiction. She found that the appellant had been convicted of an offence as a result of the Incident and the offence was designated in the reciprocal agreement with New York State. Thus, she concluded, the suspension occurred by operation of law and could not be attacked for allegedly breaching the principles of natural justice. The application judge also considered and rejected each of the appellant's submissions that the suspension violated his Charter rights.

[5] A central issue below, and again on appeal, is the appellant's contention that his guilty plea and conditional discharge in the state of New York did not amount to a conviction. The application judge noted that whether it amounted to a conviction was a question of foreign law and that the appellant had failed to submit expert evidence on the matter that met the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. She also observed that the official New York State documents provided to the Ministry of Transportation stated that the appellant had been "convicted" in New York State of a traffic violation covered by the reciprocal agreement.

[6] On appeal, the appellant repeats the submissions and arguments he made below. In addition, he maintains that his appeal rights are prejudiced because no transcript of the oral hearing of the application, by Zoom, was made.

Disposition

[7] The application was decided primarily based on the application judge's interpretation of s. 41(1)(d) of the Act. On that matter, the standard of review by this court is correctness. We are of the view that the application judge correctly interpreted that provision and we fully endorse her reasoning for that interpretation. We also endorse her disposition of the other issues raised by the appellant, including on matters of natural justice and the Charter.

[8] Finally, we see no prejudice to the appellant as a result of the absence of a transcript of the oral hearing of the application. Therefore, we would not give effect to that ground of appeal.

[9] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent, fixed at $9,000, all inclusive.

"E.E. Gillese J.A."

"L. Favreau J.A."

"M. Rahman J.A."