|
Consumer - Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021 (TSSEA, 2021). Thibault v. Ontario (Attorney General)
In Thibault v. Ontario (Attorney General) (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers the disqualifying effect of various criminal and related 'prohibition orders' [under CCC 109 'Mandatory prohibition order'] on applicants for tow truck certification under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021 (TSSEA):[1] In 2021, Ontario enacted the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 26, Sched. 3 (“TSSEA”). The TSSEA introduced a certification regime for tow-truck operators. The appellants, André Thibault and Sean Ramsay, have worked in the towing industry for decades. Following the enactment of the TSSEA, the appellants had to seek certification in order to continue working. They were refused certification on the basis that they had “disqualifying record[s] of convictions or charges” under s. 2(1) of O. Reg. 167/23 (the “Regulation”). Specifically, they are both subject to lifetime prohibition orders under s. 109 [SS: 'Mandatory prohibition order'] of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, as a result of dated drug convictions.[1] Section 109 prohibits the possession of certain weapons, including prohibited and restricted firearms, for life. Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Regulation provides that:2. (1) For the purposes of this Regulation, a person has a disqualifying record of convictions or charges if,
....
(d) the person is subject to a court order, conditions of parole or an undertaking to a peace officer prohibiting him or her from,
(i) possessing a weapon, or [2] The appellants challenged the validity of s. 2(1)(d)(i) on the grounds that it is ultra vires because it is inconsistent with the TSSEA’s purpose of protecting legitimate towing operators. The appellants also challenged the Regulation on Charter grounds. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellants’ application. They appealed, with leave to this court, making the same arguments.
[3] Prior to the hearing of the appeal, the court asked the parties to address the applicability of s. 2(1)(d)(i) to operators who are not already captured by ss. 2(1)(a)-(c). Because the appellants were convicted under ss. 5 and 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (“CDSA”), s. 2(1)(c) of the Regulation, in particular, is significant. A person is disqualified by s. 2(1)(c) if they have “been convicted or found guilty in the preceding ten years of an offence under section 5, 6, 7 or 7.1 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada), or of a comparable offence in another jurisdiction”.
[4] In our view, s. 2(1)(d)(i) does not apply to a person who is subject to a s. 109 order by virtue of a conviction for offences already set out in s. 2(1)(c) of the Regulation. To read the provision otherwise renders s. 2(1)(c) redundant.
[5] Under s. 109(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, everyone who is convicted of an offence under ss. 5(1) or (2), 6(1) or (2), or 7(1) of the CDSA, automatically receives a lifetime s. 109 prohibition order.[2] By necessity, anyone convicted of an offence under ss. 5-7 of the CDSA will be captured by s. 2(1)(d)(i) because they are subject to an order prohibiting them from possessing a weapon. They will also be captured by s. 2(1)(c) because of their previous conviction under the CDSA. According to the words of s. 2(1)(c), but for the s. 109 order (or any other reason for disqualification), they should be certifiable once ten years have elapsed since their conviction. It is illogical that s. 2(1)(c) prescribes a time limit after which certification is permitted if s. 2(1)(d)(i), by its lifetime prohibition, bars nearly every person captured by the offences listed in s. 2(1)(c). It is trite that the legislature does not pointlessly repeat itself or speak in vain: Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson, 2016 SCC 21, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 381, at para. 32. Nor should the Regulation be interpreted in a manner that would lead to absurd consequences: Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at para. 27.
[6] To ensure the coherence of the scheme, and applying the logic behind the interpretive maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (“a specific provision overrides a general provision”), s. 2(1)(d)(i) must not be read to include those operators who have committed an offence under s. 2(1)(c) that results in a mandatory s. 109 order. If a person seeking certification under the TSSEA has committed one of the offences enumerated in s. 2(1)(c), the prohibition order associated with that conviction cannot serve as an independent basis for disqualification under s. 2(1)(d)(i). This is because the specific time limit prescribed by s. 2(1)(c) overtakes the general and residual nature of s. 2(1)(d)(i).
[7] On its face, s. 2(1)(d)(i) retains meaning because it captures those subject to orders not arising out of the offences enumerated in s. 2(1)(c) or other weapons prohibition orders associated with another court order, including bail conditions; conditions of parole; or an undertaking to a peace officer. . Thibault and Ramsay v. Attorney General of Ontario
In Thibault and Ramsay v. Attorney General of Ontario (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this challenging part of an Ontario regulation [Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021 (TSSEA, 2021), Reg. 167/23] on charter and ultra vires grounds. The regulation provision [Reg. 167/23, s.2(d)(i)] challenged disqualified a person from holding a "tow certificate, tow driver certificate or vehicle storage certificate" if "the person is subject to a court order, conditions of parole or an undertaking to a peace officer prohibiting him or her from, ... possessing a weapon".
Here the court reviews the TSSEA, 2021 legislation:[2] The regulatory regime for the tow truck industry was recently overhauled, giving rise to the Act and the Regulation. This major reform followed a decade of reports and submissions to the government identifying serious problems in the industry, including crime and consumer exploitation threatening the well-being and lives of customers, employees, and others.
....
New Regulatory Regime for the Towing Industry
[20] The Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021, was enacted to regulate the towing industry, given the persistent and serious problems in that industry. Widespread problems were identified in a series of reports, including a 2012 report of an anti-fraud task force,[1] a 2014 report from the Towing and Storage Advisory Group,[2] and a 2021 report of the Towing Task Force.[3]
[21] The Ontario government struck the Towing Task Force in 2020 in response to concerns raised about incidents of “criminal activity and violence in the towing industry.”[4] The Task Force consulted widely, including, among others, towing industry representatives and law enforcement agencies. The earlier reports were also the product of significant consultation.
[22] Among other problem areas, the Task Force concluded that recent increases in violence and crime in the sector had created an unsafe environment for customers, enforcement officials and tow operators. A large portion of the respondents to the Task Force indicated that Ontario should prioritize licensing for tow truck drivers.
[23] The Towing Task Force made numerous recommendations to increase safety and enforcement, clarify protections for customers, improve industry standards and strengthen penalties for violators.
[24] The Task Force recommended a comprehensive provincial oversight model. In response, Ontario passed the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021.
[25] The Act’s goals include protecting customers receiving towing services and people working in the industry, supporting legitimate operators, and combating crime and fraud in the sector. The Act includes certification requirements for drivers and operators as well as consumer protection measures, professional standards for towing services, prohibitions against harmful practices and fraud, and complaint procedures.
[26] The certification regime at issue in this application begins with ss. 2 and 3 of the Act. Sections 2 (for tow operators) and 3 (for tow truck drivers) prohibit the provision of towing services without a certificate. Section 5 then provides that the Director[5] may issue a certificate if the applicant meets the prescribed qualifications and requirements, except in certain circumstances set out in s. 5(3):(3) Regardless of whether an applicant or certificate holder meets the prescribed qualifications and requirements for a certificate, the Director,
(a) shall refuse to issue or renew the certificate in the prescribed circumstances; ...
(b) may refuse to issue or renew the certificate,
(i) if the applicant or holder owes an outstanding fee, fine or administrative penalty, or any interest or penalty in respect of such a fee, fine or penalty, under this Act, the Highway Traffic Act or the Provincial Offences Act,
(ii) if the Director determines that a prescribed circumstance applies, or
(iii) for any prescribed reason.
[Emphasis added.] [27] Section 64 of the Act then provides for broad regulation-making authority, including regulations governing conditions and requirements for a certificate, giving rise to O. Reg. 167/23.
[28] Before putting forward the Regulation, there were further consultations. Among other things, there was a Technical Advisory Group with key stakeholders. The decision to include criminal record screening requirements in the Regulation was informed by Ontario’s goals to combat criminal activity in the towing industry and protect consumers interacting with the industry. Over one hundred submissions were received, including from towing service providers and law enforcement groups.
[29] After extensive consultations and other research, including a review of the regimes in place at the municipalities that had attempted to address the issues, the Ministry of Transportation put forward the regime for certification that is now included in the Regulation. The Regulation listed specific offences and court orders that would preclude a person from becoming certified. The offences were grouped, and some offences permitted certification after the passage of a period of time.
[30] The submissions sent to Cabinet described how the Act was a response to the growing violence and criminal activity in the towing industry and that the Act was enabling legislation that required regulations. The submissions indicated that the certification system was the “core” of the Act and the “primary mechanism” by which the Act would improve outcomes for the industry and for Ontarians. Among the benefits expected from the Regulation, the submissions noted the reduction of violence and crime.
[31] O. Reg. 167/23 was approved by Cabinet.[6] Section 8 of the Regulation sets out mandatory “qualification and requirements” to obtain a tow certificate for tow operators, one of which is as follows:3. The applicant does not have a disqualifying record of convictions or charges as described in section 2. [Emphasis added.] [32] There is a parallel provision under s. 15 (1) 4 for a tow driver certificate.[7]
[33] Section 2 of the Regulation then provides that a person has a “disqualifying record of convictions or charges” if the person falls within a list of categories, including the following:(d) the person is subject to a court order, conditions of parole or an undertaking to a peace officer prohibiting him or her from,
(i) possessing a weapon, ...
|
