Court File and Parties

CITATION: Samhadana v. City of Toronto and Toronto Licensing Tribunal, 2025 ONSC 6344

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-00000802-00JR

DATE: 20251114

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Sharaf Samhadana, Appellant (self-represented)

AND:

City of Toronto and Toronto Licensing Tribunal, Respondents

BEFORE: ACJ McWatt

COUNSEL: Matthew Cornet, for the Respondent The City of Toronto

Scott Nowoselski, for the Respondent Toronto Licensing Tribunal

HEARD: Thursday, November 13, 2025 (Video Conference)

ENDORSEMENT

McWatt A.C J.

[1] The applicant, Sharaf Samhadana, has brought an application for judicial review of two decisions of the Toronto Licensing Tribunal (the “TLT”), one of which revoked his vehicle-for-hire driver’s licence. He now brings this preliminary motion for a stay of the TLT decisions.

[2] The City of Toronto Act, 2006 S.O. 2006, c. 11 ("COTA") grants the City broad authority to pass by-laws respecting, inter alia: business licensing; the well-being of the City, and consumer protection.

[3] The City has exercised this authority to create Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 546, Licensing of Vehicles-for-Hire,2 which, among other things, requires vehicle-for-hire (taxicab and limousine) drivers to obtain a licence to operate and to comply with certain regulations.

[4] The City’s Municipal Licensing and Standards Division (“MLS”) has delegated authority to administer the licensing system under Chapter 546. However, where MLS seeks to revoke or place conditions on an existing licence, the matter must be referred to the TLT for a hearing.

[5] The TLT is an independent, quasi-judicial administrative body that has delegated authority to determine whether a business licence should be suspended, revoked, or have conditions placed upon it. The TLT may exercise these powers where it has “reasonable grounds to believe” that a licensee will not carry on their business with integrity and honesty, where the conduct of the business has breached or may breach the law, or where the conduct of the licensee has endangered or would endanger the rights, health, or safety or other members of the public.

[6] The applicant has held a VFH driver’s licence since August 8, 2022.

[7] At MLS’ request, the TLT held a hearing to decide if the applicant’s VFH licence should be revoked, suspended, or have conditions placed upon it due to a failure to be civil and well-behaved. Over three days on April 3, May 1, and June 5, 2025, MLS entered testimony, documents, and video recordings through three by-law enforcement officers and a Toronto Police Service Officer, while the applicant testified himself and summonsed three MLS employees.

[8] On July 7, 2025, the TLT’s first decision found that the applicant had repeatedly harassed by-law enforcement officers to such an extent that they felt unsafe and could not complete their law enforcement duties.

[9] The TLT determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant had failed to carry on his business in accordance with the Toronto Municipal Code because he had failed to be civil and well-behaved. Among other things, the TLT found:

a. “The video evidence… confirms the testimony of MLS officers that Mr. Samhadana has behaved uncivilly towards them by following them around when they were patrolling and raising his voice and using foul and insulting language directed at them.”

b. “In his written communications with MLS, the Tribunal notes that Mr. Samhadana frequently uses insulting and demeaning language to describe MLS staff whenever MLS has not been able to help him with the numerous complaints he has filed about other taxi and Uber drivers.”

c. It was apparent from the videos and their testimonies that [MLS officers] had been subjected to foul, insulting language, followed around by Mr. Samhadana while trying to do their job even though they tried to disengage so that in some instances, they needed to call the police for assistance because they feared for their safety.”

d. “Given that MLS has also submitted evidence that there have also been complaints filed by Mr. Samhadana’s customer and other taxi drivers for uncivil behavior during disputes, it is evident to the Tribunal that this inability to control his frustration and anger may also be affecting his ability to de-escalate conflicts with customers and the public.”

[10] The TLT did not revoke the applicant’s licence because it would likely cause hardship to him and his children. Instead, the TLT ordered that the applicant’s VFH driver’s licence be suspended for six months, subject to the applicant completing and benefitting from anger management counselling by a qualified program or counsellor for a duration of at least six hours.

[11] Upon completing this anger management counselling, the applicant could request that the matter be brought back before the TLT for a determination of his fitness to maintain a licence. If the applicant did not complete this counselling within six months, his licence would be revoked.

[12] In June, 2025, the applicant requested a continued hearing before the TLT to demonstrate that he had completed an anger management counselling program and was fit to maintain his licence.

[13] At the hearing, on August 21, 2025, MLS tendered further testimony and video evidence through two by-law enforcement officers with respect to a recorded interaction between the applicant and the officers on July 24, 2025, after the applicant had completed anger management counselling. The evidence showed that the applicant had, while his licence was suspended, approached by-law enforcement officers to instigate a confrontation and had again used foul, insulting language toward them and obstructed the officers in carrying out their duties. The applicant called four-character witnesses.

[14] In its second decision of September 17, 2025, the TLT again determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant had failed to carry on his business in accordance with the Toronto Municipal Code because he had failed to be civil and well-behaved. Among other things, the TLT found:

a. “In the video taken during this incident, which is approximately 20 minutes long, Mr. Samhadana is shown using degrading language to insult MLS officers numerous times such as calling them ‘loser’ or ‘stupid’.”

b. “Throughout the video, Mr. Samhadana’s behavior strongly demonstrates that he lacks regard or respect for MLS officers because he intentionally tells other taxicab drivers not to co-operate with them and mocks Officer Mitchell’s attempts to make him co-operate with them and insults Supervisor Singh numerous times. Furthermore, the video shows him repeatedly inserting himself into situations in a disrespectful manner between MLS officers and other taxicab drivers which have nothing to do with him.”

c. “Mr. Samhadana approached Supervisor Singh while talking in a loud voice, refusing to back away even when Supervisor Singh told him to numerous times. The video shows one of the other drivers trying to calm Mr. Samhadana down but was pushed aside by him. The Tribunal finds that a reasonable person would have felt threatened or harassed by Mr. Samhadana’s behavior especially when Mr. Samhadana said to Supervisor Singh that his days are numbered.”

d. “… the Tribunal finds that it is clear from [the applicant’s] testimony, that he does not understand what it means to act civilly nor is he aware that his actions and words as shown on the video, are uncivil and disrespectful. He was not able to provide an explanation to the Tribunal as to why he continued to act this way even after completion of his anger management course as he appeared agitated and disrespectful when talking to MLS officer on the video to the point where he seemed to be intentionally provoking them. As such, the Tribunal is of the opinion that Mr. Samhadana has not shown he has gained any discernable benefit from anger management counselling.”

e. Although it is commendable that he has expressed that he may continue with the counselling, his testimony reveals that he continues to feel much frustration with how taxicab drivers are treated by MLS officers as he submitted as evidence, an email he had sent to MLS about Supervisor Singh’s behavior towards taxicab drivers. It is apparent to the Tribunal that the intensity of the frustration he continues to feel towards MLS renders him unable to control his actions and words to the point where he can interact civilly and respectfully with MLS staff.

[15] The TLT considered if any conditions could be placed on the applicant’s licence but determined that they would not have a positive impact on the applicant’s behavior. As such, the Tribunal ordered that the applicant’s VFH driver’s licence be immediately revoked.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

[16] The applicant bears the onus of establishing the following elements before a stay can be granted:

a. There is a serious issue to be tried;

b. The moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; and

c. The balance of convenience favors granting the stay. (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. TTC, 2021 ONSC 7658 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 62-63)

[17] The criteria are not watertight compartments. The strength of one may compensate for the weakness of another. The overriding question is whether the interests of justice call for a stay. (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. TTC, supra at para. 64).

A. The Applicant Has Not Established a Serious Issue to be Tried

[18] The standard on which the TLT’s decisions were to be based is “reasonable grounds for belief”, which “requires something more than mere suspicion, but less that the standard applicable in civil matters of proof on the balance of probabilities,”(Yarco Developments Inc. v. Home Construction Regulatory Authority (Registrar), 2024 ONSC 93 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 56-57). The ultimate standard of review of the TLT’s decision will be reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, supra at para. 16).

[19] The applicant’s Notice of Application and Notice of Motion allege bare, and incoherent grounds for review that amount to complaints that the TLT did not consider the City’s “corruption” and did not interpret video evidence as he wished. These alleged errors are not apparent from a review of the Tribunal’s reasons and the applicant has not produced a motion record nor a factum with any cogent argument that the TLT’s decision was unreasonable. While the threshold to establish a serious issue to be tried is low, the applicant bears the onus of satisfying the element and has not done by the absence of any proper record.

B. The Applicant’s Evidence of Irreparable Harm

[20] 29. Irreparable harm is harm that cannot adequately be compensated by damages because it cannot be quantified in monetary terms or cannot be cured. It refers to the nature the harm suffered, rather than its magnitude (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. TTC, supra at para. 71). And evidence of irreparable harm must be clear, not speculative and must be supported by evidence that demonstrates it would be suffered by the applicant (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. TTC, supra, at para. 72).

[21] Here, the TLT revoked the applicant’s VFH driver’s licence and it is obvious that financial loss or inconvenience will result. While the applicant’s affidavit indicates that he has been evicted and cannot pay child support, it also indicates that he continues to derive some income as a delivery driver for Uber.

[22] Overall, while the applicant has included some evidence of irreparable harm, it is weak, not supported by fulsome evidence and is therefore not dispositive of the motion.

C. The Balance of Convenience Favors Protecting The Public

[23] In assessing the balance of convenience, the court must consider which party would suffer greater harm from the granting or refusal of the stay pending a decision on the merits (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. TTC, supra at para. 86).

[24] The court must consider the potential harm of a stay on public safety and public confidence in a regulatory and disciplinary system generally (Yazdanfar v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2012 ONSC 2422 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 67-68; GFL Environmental Inc. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2014 ONSC 2728 (Div. Ct.), at para. 46).

[25] Here, the irreparable harm that would be caused to the City and the public interest by a stay outweighs any financial harm or inconvenience that the applicant may suffer for a short period. His review is set for March 14, 2026.

[26] In its decisions, the TLT determined that the applicant had repeatedly used foul and insulting language directed at by-law enforcement officers, impeded those officers in carrying out their law enforcement duties, and harassed them to such an extent that they needed to call the police because they reasonably feared for their safety. These are regulatory decisions that must be given weight.

[27] Furthermore, rather than revoke the applicant’s licence in its first decision, the TLT instead suspended the applicant’s licence and provided him the opportunity to take anger management counselling and demonstrate that he was fit to maintain his licence. Despite being given this opportunity, the TLT determined in its second decision that the applicant had repeated his past behavior, had not gained any discernable benefit from the counselling, and was unable to control his actions and words such that he can interact civilly with MLS by-law enforcement officers.

[28] In this context, the balance of convenience favors the City. While the applicant may suffer a temporary loss of income until the hearing of his application, this cannot outweigh the irreparable harm to the public interest that would result by allowing the applicant’s abusive behavior to continue such that by-law enforcement officers cannot fulfill their legal duties.

ORDER

[29] The applicant’s motion for a stay is dismissed.

[30] In the circumstances of the Applicant’s financial situation, there shall be no order for costs made.

McWatt A.C. J.

DATE: November 14, 2025