Bryant Greenbaum

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Registrar's refusal was based on the appellant's recent conviction for possession of stolen property and his initial false statements to police.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, viewed in its entirety, demonstrated that the offence was an aberration and that he had otherwise led a blameless life.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate lawfully and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the registration subject to conditions, including completing a management course and posting a $10,000 Letter of Credit.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The appellant had previously engaged in a sophisticated price inflation scheme to defraud financing companies, leading to the revocation of his registration and bankruptcy in 2008.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, his circumstances had materially changed over the past decade, including successful employment as a real estate agent and the discharge of his bankruptcy.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the proposal and directed that the appellant be registered subject to strict terms and conditions.

The appellant brought a motion to exclude the testimony of two witnesses who were former employees of a financing company that had previously settled a civil suit with the appellant.

The appellant argued that a confidentiality provision in the settlement's Full and Final Mutual Release prohibited the witnesses from testifying about their past interactions.

The Tribunal found that the language of the Release did not prohibit testimony regarding the underlying interactions, but only restricted discussion of the settlement terms and the Release itself.

The Tribunal also held that the age of the evidence went to its weight rather than its admissibility.

The motion to exclude the witnesses was dismissed, subject to limitations on testifying about resolution discussions.