Brian Osler

The Registrar proposed to refuse the Applicant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson due to a prior assault conviction, pending criminal charges for assault causing bodily harm and marijuana possession, and alleged false statements on his application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant's conduct, including a physical altercation that was likely a 'flight or fight' response, did not provide reasonable grounds to believe he would fail to conduct business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal, subject to conditions requiring the Applicant to report the outcome of his pending charges.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's registration as a salesperson/dealer under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

During the hearing, the parties requested an adjournment and subsequently submitted a joint settlement pursuant to section 6(2) of the Act and section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal accepted the settlement and ordered the proceedings concluded without a full hearing, subject to the agreed terms and conditions.

Costs decision arising from a Rule 21 motion in a proposed class proceeding.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs after largely resisting the defendants’ motion to strike, while the defendants sought costs because the plaintiffs abandoned several claims during the motion, including conspiracy and negligence claims involving the Attorney General of Canada.

The court found that the plaintiffs substantially succeeded on remaining claims but materially altered their pleadings and abandoned significant allegations during the hearing.

Given the divided success and the altered nature of the action, the court concluded that neither side should receive costs.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' proposed class action claims relating to the importation of vehicles from the United States into Canada.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to force importers to pay for unnecessary modifications and certifications by manipulating Transport Canada's admissibility list.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the Competition Act, Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment claims.

The court struck the claim for unlawful purpose conspiracy without leave to amend, but allowed the unlawful conduct conspiracy claim to proceed.

The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their claim for intentional interference with economic interests.

The appellant brought a class action alleging that the respondent transmission repair franchisor breached consumer protection legislation by charging an 'Inspection Service' fee, which the appellant characterized as an illegal fee for an estimate when repairs are authorized and carried out.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding the fee was for the labour required to remove and reinstall the transmission, not for an estimate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing with the motion judge's statutory interpretation and finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment dismissing a certified class action against a vehicle repair franchisor.

The class alleged the franchisor breached the Motor Vehicle Repair Act and Consumer Protection Act by charging estimate fees for an 'Inspection Service' when repairs were authorized.

On appeal, the plaintiff sought to admit fresh evidence of a training manual that contradicted the franchisor's evidence and had not been disclosed during cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding the due diligence test less significant when the opposing party failed to disclose it.

The court set aside the summary judgment, concluding the motions judge lacked a full record and a genuine issue for trial existed regarding conspiracy.