Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Mitanidis v. Ontario (Transportation), 2024 ONSC 5879
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 122/24
DATE: 20241030
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, CHARNEY, DAVIES JJ.
BETWEEN:
PHILIP MITANIDIS
Self-Represented Applicant
Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO (MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION) and LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Priscilla Atkinson, for the Respondent, Ontario (Minister of Transportation)
Douglas Lee, for the Respondent, Licence Appeal Tribunal
Respondents
HEARD at Toronto: October 15, 2024
REASONS FOR DECISION
Sachs J. (Orally):
Background
[1] On November 8, 2023, Mr. Mitanidis was stopped by a police officer because his vehicle’s licence plate had expired. The police officer submitted a report describing the occurrence to the Driver Medical Review Office. The report stated that Mr. Mitanidis seemed unable to see activated emergency lights or hear airhorn blasts even while waiting at a red light. The report indicated that Mr. Mitanidis’ driving ability was likely compromised to due issues with hearing, vision and/or inability to be aware of his surroundings.
[2] The report was reviewed by the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles who concluded that there was reason to believe that Mr. Mitanidis may have a medical condition that makes it unsafe for him to drive. As a result, pursuant to s. 32(5) of the Highway Traffic Act R.S.O 1990, c.H.8 (the “Act”), on November 9, 2023, the Minister requested that Mr. Mitanidis complete a medical examination to demonstrate that he is medically fit to operate a motor vehicle. Mr. Mitanidis was given three weeks (until November 30, 2023) to complete the examination and submit a report.
[3] Mr. Mitanidis did not provide the report. On December 20, 2023, (six weeks after the medical examination request), the Minister issued a notice of suspension of driver’s licence under s. 32 (5)(b)(ii) of the Act, to Mr. Mitanidis for his failure to submit a medical report. The notice advised Mr. Mitanidis that his licence could be reinstated upon the filing of a satisfactory medical report. To date, no such report has been filed.
[4] Mr. Mitanidis appealed the Minister’s decision to suspend his licence to the LAT. The LAT found that it had no jurisdiction and dismissed his appeal.
[5] Mr. Mitanidis now seeks to judicially review the two decisions by the Minister of Transportation (the request that Mr. Mitanidis submit to a medical examination and the subsequent decision to suspend his licence) and the LAT’s decision to dismiss Mr. Mitanidis’ appeal.
The LAT Decision was Reasonable.
[6] Mr. Mitanidis seeks judicial review of the decision of the LAT dismissing his appeal for want of jurisdiction. The standard of review of that decision is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 33-34. Mr. Mitanidis takes the position that the LAT should have heard his appeal. We disagree.
[7] The Licence Appeal Tribunal’s jurisdictional ruling is reasonable. The Licence Appeal Tribunal is a statutory tribunal. It can only hear appeals if it is authorized to do so by statute or regulation. The Licence Appeal Tribunal has jurisdiction under s. 50 of the Act to hear an appeal from a decision of the Minister under s. 32 (5) of the Act if the regulations establish a right of appeal. The Minister’s decision to suspend Mr. Mitanidis’ licence, was made under s. 32 (5)(b)(ii) of the Act. Section 25.1 of the Regulations under the Highway Traffic Act, O. Reg. 340/95 says that a decision made by the Minister under section s. 32 (5)(b) to s. 32 (5)(b)(i), may be appealed under s. 50 of the Act. The regulation does not create a right to appeal a decision made under s. 32 (5)(b) (ii).
[8] It was reasonable for the LAT to conclude that the legislature intended to exclude decisions made under s. 32 (5)(b)(ii) from the scope of LAT’s jurisdiction. Because the LAT had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of Mr. Mitanidis’ appeal, it also had no jurisdiction to deal with any of the Charter issues he raised. Mr. Mitanidis can only review the Minister’s decision in this case by way of an application for judicial review to this court, which he has now done.
[9] Mr. Mitanidis also argues that the procedure before the LAT was unfair. We would not give effect to this ground of appeal either. While the LAT owed a duty of procedural fairness to Mr. Mitanidis, the procedure followed by LAT was a fair one. Mr. Mitanidis was not entitled to an oral hearing before the LAT, s. 4.6(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act authorizes the LAT to dismiss a proceeding without a hearing if it is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
[10] The LAT is required to give a party notice before dismissing an appeal without a hearing and is required to give the parties an opportunity to make submissions. That is what happened in this case.
[11] After Mr. Mitanidis filed his appeal with the LAT, the LAT issued a notice of intent to dismiss. The notice set out the reason why the LAT was considering dismissing his appeal. The notice explained the potential jurisdictional issue in detail. Mr. Mitanidis was given an opportunity to make submissions on why the tribunal should not dismiss his appeal. The LAT considered Mr. Mitanidis’ submissions and issued written reasons for dismissing his appeal.
The Decision to Request a Medical Examination was Reasonable.
[12] The Minister’s decisions were discretionary decisions that were made in relation to the highly regulated drivers licensing regime that exists to protect the users of roads. The Act and the regulation authorize the minister to request that a licence holder complete a medical examination for any reasons that would advance the Act’s objectives, including where there is doubt as to a licence holder’s fitness to drive.
[13] It cannot be unreasonable for the Minister to have asked Mr. Mitanidis to provide evidence of fitness, when his ability to drive safely was put into question by a police officer who interacted directly with Mr. Mitanidis on the roadway and had cogent reasons for concern about Mr. Mitanidis’ fitness to drive. The Act does not prohibit the Minister from acting on information received from a police officer and since police officers are often the officers of the law who are tasked with observing the public’s driving, it was an eminently reasonable and fair choice for the Minister to act on information from a police officer to protect road safety. That choice is entitled to deference from this court.
[14] Mr. Mitanidis suggested that the Minister’s decision was unreasonable because it relied on a “biased” police report. There is nothing in the evidentiary record to support his assertion.
The Decision to Suspend Mr. Mitanidis’ Drivers Licence was Reasonable.
[15] The Minister’s decision to suspend was also a good faith exercise of his statutory powers. The Minister sought to protect road safety when he suspended Mr. Mitanidis’ driver’s licence because Mr. Mitanidis failed to provide evidence of fitness to drive. This was a reasonable and fair choice that the Minister was entitled to make under the legislation.
[16] The suggestion that the Minister did not afford Mr. Mitanidis adequate time to obtain an examination is belied by the fact that it has been 11 months since the examination was first requested and Mr. Mitanidis still has not completed an examination. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to support an assertion that Mr. Mitanidis’ failure to obtain an examination in the seven-week period before the decision to suspend was caused by the fact that he could not find someone to do the examination within that period of time.
The Minister’s Decisions were Procedurally Fair
[17] The decisions were made in a procedurally fair manner. Mr. Mitanidis was notified in writing of the reason for the medical examination request and was given six weeks to comply if he wished to keep his driving privileges. Mr. Mitanidis’ suggestion that the decisions were procedurally unfair because the Minister did not hold an oral hearing, with him being given the right to cross examine the police officer who submitted the report, ignores the finding of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Horsefield v. Reg. of Motor Vehicles, 1999 2023 (ON CA), 44 O.R.(3d) 73 at para 28, that the province has the power to suspend a drivers licence without a hearing.
The Charter Arguments Have No Merit
[18] Mr. Mitanidis argues that the Minister’s decision to require him to obtain a medical examination violated his rights under s. 7, 9 and 15 of the Charter. In Horsefield v. Reg. of Motor Vehicles, 1999 2023 (ON CA), 44 O.R.(3d) 73, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that s. 7 of the Charter does not include the right to drive a motor vehicle. A driver’s licence is not a “liberty” or “security of the person” interest guaranteed by the Charter and the suspension of a drivers licence does not engage the principles of fundamental justice.
[19] Mr. Mitanidis’ claim that he was arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 because the Minister relied on a police report to request a medical examination must also be rejected. Other than the initial roadside stop by the police officer, which was authorized by the Act and is not challenged in this proceeding, Mr. Mitanidis has not been detained. The Minister’s decision to request a medical examination is not a detention.
[20] Mr. Mitanidis has not established a violation of his rights under s. 15 of the Charter. To establish that equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter are infringed, Mr. Mitanidis must show that the decision creates a distinction based on an enumerated or analogous ground on its face or in its impact. And secondly, that this imposes a burden or denies a benefit in a manner that reinforces or perpetuates disadvantage. He has met neither step. The evidence in this case indicates that the Minister received information that Mr. Mitanidis’ driving privilege should be reviewed for medical reasons. The Minister’s decision to request a medical examination was made on the basis of the police officer’s observation after a traffic stop. In these circumstances, the Minister’s request for further information in the form of a medical examination was entirely consistent with the highway safety purposes of the Act and was not discrimination within the meaning of s. 15 of the Charter.
Conclusion
[21] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[22] As the successful party, the respondent minister is entitled to its costs of this application. The Minister has requested costs in the amount of $ 750.00, which we find to be entirely reasonable, even taking into account Mr. Mitanidis’ financial circumstances. In view of those financial circumstances, he will have 60 days to pay that costs award. Mr. Mitanidis’ consent as to form and content of any order arising from these reasons is hereby dispensed with.
Sachs J.
I agree:
Charney J.
I agree:
Davies J.
Oral Reasons Released: October 15, 2024
Written Endorsement Released: October 30, 2024,
CITATION: Mitanidis v. Ontario (Transportation), 2024 ONSC 5879
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 122/24
DATE: 20241015
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, CHARNEY, DAVIES JJ.
BETWEEN:
PHILIP MITANIDIS
Applicant
– and –
ONTARIO (MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION) and LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR DECISION
SACHS J.
Oral Reasons Released: October 15, 2024
Written Endorsement Released: October 30, 2024