Patrick Moore

The moving party, a towing company, sought a stay of a decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal confirming the cancellation of its commercial vehicle operator's registration pending an appeal.

The cancellation was based on a poor safety rating and the safety records of related parties involved in an unclosed sale of the business.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded that the public interest in highway safety outweighed the potential financial harm to the moving party.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant towing company appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The Registrar issued the order based on the appellant's poor safety record, which included collisions and out-of-service defects, and its affiliations with individuals and corporations that had previously had their CVOR certificates cancelled for safety concerns.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was related to these individuals through direct or indirect control and management.

The Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the appellant would not operate commercial vehicles safely and confirmed the cancellation order.

The appellants, affiliated concrete suppliers, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' cancellation of their Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR).

The cancellation followed a history of poor safety compliance and four fatal collisions involving the appellants' drivers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's assessment of management's responsibility, the preventability of the collisions, or the appellants' safety record.

The Court also held that the permanent cancellation of the CVOR was not a disproportionate sanction given the ongoing safety problems and the need to protect the public.

The appellant, a tow truck company, appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

The Registrar cancelled the appellant's Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate based on the poor safety record of an affiliated company and the driving record of the sole owner, which included multiple stunt driving charges.

The Tribunal found that the safety record provided reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to cancel the CVOR certificate and seize the plates.

The appellant appealed a cancellation and seizure order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles regarding its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR).

The Registrar based the cancellation on the poor safety record of related persons and the appellant's own unacceptable safety record.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while there were connections between the appellant and the related persons, the appellant had made substantial improvements to its safety practices, including implementing a safety plan, terminating poor drivers, and improving its violation rate.

The Tribunal set aside the cancellation and seizure order, allowing the appellant to retain its CVOR subject to conditions, including a fleet limitation and a requirement for the owner to complete a CVOR test.

The appellant moved for a stay of a License Appeal Tribunal decision confirming the seizure of its vehicle permits and number plates due to an atrocious safety record.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test and found the appeal lacked merit, the appellant would not suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured public safety over the appellant's economic interests.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a lower court's decision to set aside a conviction against Becker Bros.

Trucking Inc. for operating a commercial motor vehicle in an unsafe condition, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal judge had ruled that certified Ministry records and copies of documents produced by the driver were inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal judge erred in both conclusions, holding that the Ministry's certified documents were admissible as "statements" under s. 210(7) of the HTA, and that the documents produced by the driver were admissible under s. 216.1(5) of the HTA or as an exception to the hearsay rule (admissions by documents in possession).

The Court allowed the Crown's appeal, reinstating the conviction and sentence.

Four trucking companies appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, which cancelled their Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) certificates.

The Registrar argued that the companies were related through the common management of a single individual who had a history of operating trucking businesses with poor safety records.

The Tribunal found that the companies were indeed related and that their collective poor safety records, including numerous hours of service violations and collisions, provided reason to believe they would not operate safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's order cancelling the CVOR certificates.

The appellant appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to an extremely poor commercial vehicle safety rating.

The appellant's violation rate reached 115.08% of the maximum allowable threshold, driven by multiple at-fault collisions, convictions, and vehicle defects.

Despite previous Ministry interventions and warnings, the appellant failed to implement effective remedial measures or improve its safety record.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar had ample reason to believe the appellant would not operate its commercial vehicles safely and confirmed the order to cancel the appellant's CVOR certificate and seize its permits and plates.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to cancel its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and seize its plates.

The appellant had a history of safety problems, including a high violation rate resulting from at-fault collisions, out-of-service safety defects, and highway traffic violations.

Despite previous interventions, including a suspension and specific performance conditions, the appellant's violation rate continued to increase.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's safety record provided reason to believe it would not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely and confirmed the Registrar's cancellation order.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing its appeal of a vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in finding the vehicle was not stolen and in its application of the due diligence standard.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law.

The original decision correctly required an intention to deprive the owner to establish the vehicle was stolen, which was absent as the employee was using the vehicle for company business.

Furthermore, the Tribunal correctly applied the due diligence standard, noting the appellant failed to verify the driver's licence validity.

The Crown sought leave to appeal a Provincial Offences Act decision.

The respondent argued that the motion for leave to appeal should be heard in writing, relying on the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court, acting as a case management judge, determined that motions for leave to appeal under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act are presumed to be heard orally, consistent with the settled practice of the Court of Appeal.

The court found that while the Rules of the Court of Appeal in Appeals Under the Provincial Offences Act (POA Rules) did not explicitly state an oral hearing for represented parties, the language used in Rule 3 and Form 1 implied an oral hearing.

The court also clarified that Rule 61.03.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to fill the gap regarding the exchange of facta.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' cancellation of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The appellant argued the Tribunal misapprehended evidence regarding a collision, failed to weigh recent safety improvements, and that the appellant was denied due process.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no significant error of law or fact in the original decision and noting that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to reweigh evidence.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to revoke their motor vehicle inspection station licence and mechanic registration.

The Director cited a history of 26 convictions since 2007 for issuing safety standard certificates for non-compliant vehicles, making false statements, and failing to keep proper records.

The appellants argued their record was de minimis given the volume of inspections and proposed conditions to mitigate concerns.

The Tribunal found the appellants repeatedly failed to comply with safety standards and that conditions were inappropriate given the ongoing nature of the violations.

The Tribunal directed the Director to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence and registration.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend their Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificates for 15 days.

The Registrar based the suspension on the individual appellant's poor safety record, including a high violation rate and numerous convictions, as well as his obstruction of Ministry officers attempting to conduct a facility audit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar had reason to believe the appellants would not operate commercial vehicles safely or in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal confirmed the 15-day suspension, noting the individual appellant's resistance to regulation and the need for deterrence, while acknowledging his payment of outstanding fines as a mitigating factor.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended indefinitely in 2008 due to impaired driving convictions.

In 2018, his licence was reinstated subject to a permanent ignition interlock condition.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove the condition.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the condition was imposed automatically by operation of law under the Highway Traffic Act, not by a discretionary decision of the Minister or Registrar that could be appealed.

The appellant appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, which terminated its right to operate commercial trucks in Ontario due to a poor safety record.

The appellant's violation rate exceeded 100%, and it had failed a facility audit, accumulated numerous convictions, and been involved in multiple collisions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's proposed action plan, which included downsizing to one truck, failed to adequately address the safety concerns.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate safely and confirmed the cancellation order.

The appellant appealed a 14-day suspension of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to a poor safety record and recent significant safety events, including two wheel separations and a serious multi-vehicle accident.

The appellant argued its violation rate was below the threshold for suspension and that certain incidents should not be recorded.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's safety record provided reasonable grounds to believe it would not operate safely, rejecting the appellant's interpretation that towed 'devices' were exempt from the CVOR record.

The Tribunal confirmed the 14-day suspension as an appropriate sanction.

The appellant trucking company brought a motion for a stay of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision confirming the cancellation of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate pending appeal.

The cancellation was based on a poor safety record, including multiple out-of-service defects and convictions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the appellant failed to prove irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured public safety over the appellant's pecuniary interests.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Cancellation and Seizure issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles proposing to cancel its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) due to a poor safety record.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar had sufficient reason to believe the appellant would not operate commercial motor vehicles safely, citing numerous vehicle defects, convictions, and a failure to cooperate with inspections.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to cancel the CVOR.