Andreas Michael Rothe

Following a successful appeal by the appellant against the Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The respondent argued that the transcript costs should be disallowed because it had conceded the main legal issue.

The court rejected this argument, finding the facts remained central to the respondent's alternative position.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded the appellant partial indemnity costs fixed at $9,733.86 plus GST.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding the respondent's registration.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal applied the wrong statutory test under s. 5(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act by failing to determine if the respondent's past conduct afforded 'reasonable grounds' for belief that he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal also erred by failing to give appropriate weight to evidence of the respondent's past criminal conduct involving defrauding customers.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for a new hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which directed the Registrar to carry out a proposal to refuse and revoke their motor vehicle dealer registrations.

The Tribunal had held that the Registrar had the onus to show he believed there were reasonable grounds for the proposal, and that the Tribunal owed deference to the Registrar's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by misapprehending its role.

Under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, the Tribunal is required to make its own assessment of the facts and has the explicit statutory authority to substitute its opinion for that of the Registrar, owing no deference to the Registrar's initial proposal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Tribunal found that the appellant owed considerable unremitted retail sales tax from a previous dealership and had failed to disclose a pending fraud charge on his application.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal made no legal errors and its findings of fact were not clearly wrong.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal confirming the Registrar's proposal to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by applying a test of whether the Registrar was in error, rather than conducting a de novo hearing and making an independent determination as required by section 7(4) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

Applying a correctness standard of review, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the decision, and remitted the matter for a rehearing before a differently constituted panel.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act appealed a decision of the Licence Registration Appeal Tribunal, which directed the Registrar not to revoke the respondents' registration despite convictions for odometer tampering.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal applied the correct test from Brenner and that its findings of fact and credibility were supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal confirming the Registrar's proposal to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The appellant argued he was denied natural justice and that the tribunal erred in its factual findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the hearing was appropriate, hearsay evidence was permitted under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, and there was ample evidence to support the revocation.

The appellant Registrar appealed from a Divisional Court judgment requiring a further registration application under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act to be dealt with through the statutory notice and hearing process.

The respondent had previously had his registration revoked and later reapplied without, in the Registrar's view, providing new evidence or a material change in circumstances under s. 8.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 8 establishes a substantive threshold for a renewed application but does not displace the procedural protections in s. 7.

Where the Registrar proposes to refuse registration, notice and an opportunity to require a tribunal hearing must still be provided.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.