Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review was sought of two Toronto Licensing Tribunal (TLT) decisions regarding the suspension and revocation of a vehicle-for-hire (VFH) driver’s licence.

• The applicant’s conduct was scrutinized for breaches of the Toronto Municipal Code’s requirements for civility and proper behavior by licensees.

• Video and testimonial evidence showed repeated harassment and use of foul and insulting language toward by-law enforcement officers.

• The effectiveness of the applicant’s completion of anger management counselling was evaluated in relation to his ongoing conduct.

• The court considered whether a stay of the TLT’s decisions was justified based on irreparable harm and the balance of convenience.

• Public interest in protecting safety and maintaining confidence in the licensing system was weighed against the applicant’s claimed financial harm.

Background and facts of the case

Sharaf Samhadana, a self-represented appellant, held a vehicle-for-hire (VFH) driver’s licence from the City of Toronto since August 8, 2022. The City of Toronto, through its Municipal Licensing and Standards Division (MLS), regulates VFH drivers under Chapter 546 of the Toronto Municipal Code. Where MLS seeks to revoke or place conditions on a licence, the matter is referred to the Toronto Licensing Tribunal (TLT), an independent, quasi-judicial administrative body.

MLS requested a hearing before the TLT to determine whether Mr. Samhadana’s licence should be revoked, suspended, or have conditions placed upon it due to alleged failure to be civil and well-behaved. Over three hearing days in April, May, and June 2025, MLS presented testimony, documents, and video recordings through three by-law enforcement officers and a Toronto Police Service Officer. Mr. Samhadana testified and called three MLS employees.

On July 7, 2025, the TLT found that Mr. Samhadana had repeatedly harassed by-law enforcement officers, making them feel unsafe and unable to complete their duties. The TLT found that he behaved uncivilly by following officers, raising his voice, and using foul and insulting language, both in person and in written communications. The TLT also noted complaints from customers and other drivers regarding his behavior. The TLT did not revoke his licence immediately, citing likely hardship to him and his children. Instead, it suspended his licence for six months, subject to completion of at least six hours of anger management counselling. Upon completion, he could request a further hearing to determine his fitness to maintain a licence. Failure to complete counselling within six months would result in revocation.

In June 2025, Mr. Samhadana requested a continued hearing to demonstrate completion of anger management counselling and his fitness to maintain his licence. At the August 21, 2025 hearing, MLS presented further testimony and video evidence regarding a July 24, 2025 incident, after the applicant had completed counselling. The evidence showed Mr. Samhadana, while his licence was suspended, approached by-law enforcement officers, instigated a confrontation, used foul and insulting language, and obstructed the officers. Mr. Samhadana called four character witnesses.

On September 17, 2025, the TLT again found that Mr. Samhadana failed to carry on his business in accordance with the Toronto Municipal Code, citing continued use of degrading language and disrespectful conduct. The TLT determined that he had not benefited from counselling and was unable to control his actions and words. The TLT ordered that his VFH driver’s licence be immediately revoked, finding that no conditions would positively impact his behavior.

Judicial review and court outcome

Mr. Samhadana brought an application for judicial review of both TLT decisions and moved for a stay of the decisions. The Ontario Divisional Court, presided over by Associate Chief Justice McWatt, considered whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience. The court found that the applicant’s grounds for review were bare and incoherent, lacking a proper record or cogent argument. The evidence of irreparable harm was weak and not supported by fulsome evidence. The court concluded that the balance of convenience favored protecting the public and regulatory enforcement over the applicant’s temporary financial loss. The motion for a stay was dismissed.

Conclusion

The City of Toronto and the Toronto Licensing Tribunal were the successful parties. No monetary award, damages, or costs were ordered, as the court stated: “there shall be no order for costs made.”