Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Court confirmed eligibility to apply for rescission of licence suspension despite conviction under different section.

• Suspension triggered after conviction for driving without a valid licence following earlier points suspension.

• Legislative interpretation allowed a broad reading of eligibility under the Motor Vehicle Act.

• Applicant failed to prove likely loss of livelihood necessary to meet rescission standard.

• Evidence showed ongoing employment despite suspension, undermining hardship claim.

• Application dismissed without costs due to partial procedural success.

Facts of the case

Jislin Sammy Mallet sought reinstatement of his driving privileges following a mandatory one-year suspension issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, running from July 29, 2024, to July 29, 2025. His suspension arose after he lost all his demerit points due to multiple infractions, failed to pay a fine, and was subsequently caught driving while his licence was suspended. Although he was originally charged under section 345 of the Motor Vehicle Act, he pleaded guilty to a lesser offence under section 78 for driving without a valid licence. Mallet brought an application under section 313 of the Motor Vehicle Act, arguing he qualified to seek rescission of his suspension and that continued suspension would cause loss of livelihood as a seasonal snowplow operator.

Outcome of the case

The Court determined that Mr. Mallet was eligible to bring his application under section 313(2)(d) despite the technical difference in the offence pleaded. Applying a purposive interpretation, the Court held that the provision covered convictions based on the underlying conduct of driving while suspended. However, the Court found that Mr. Mallet failed to meet the burden of showing he would lose his livelihood without a licence. His affidavit and live testimony revealed that although his duties were limited, he remained employed during the winter season and had not been threatened with termination. The Court noted that inconvenience alone is insufficient; a real risk to livelihood must be shown. Consequently, the application to rescind the suspension was dismissed. No order as to costs was made, considering the Registrar initially indicated it would not contest the application.