Diana Mojica

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse a Registration issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order disposing of the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to register the appellant as a motor vehicle salesperson subject to specific terms and conditions, including compliance with a consumer proposal and restrictions on his employment and business interests.

The appellant appealed a decision denying his claim for compensation from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund regarding a 2014 Mercedes he allegedly purchased but never received.

The Board argued the appellant was not acting as a consumer and was likely complicit in a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the dealership.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's evidence not credible, noting he continued making loan payments for years without receiving the vehicle and engaged in multiple other vehicle transactions for business purposes.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant was not acting as a consumer and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke the registration of Legacy Auto Center as a motor vehicle dealer and refuse the registration of Alan Sabri as a salesperson.

The Registrar alleged the appellants breached a 2015 Consent Order condition requiring them to take immediate steps to resolve outstanding judgments and report monthly to OMVIC.

The Registrar also alleged their past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief they would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellants breached the monthly reporting condition after their lawyers ceased communication with OMVIC, they had taken steps to resolve the judgments.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish that the appellants' past conduct warranted revocation or refusal, noting no evidence of consumer harm.

The Tribunal substituted its opinion for the Registrar's, directing the reinstatement and continuation of the registrations subject to strict terms and conditions.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellants' registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson after the individual appellant was found to have received prohibited assistance while completing the mandatory online Automotive Certification course.

The appellant appealed the proposal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the evidence of the exam proctor and college staff established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant cheated on the exam.

Given the appellant's prior discipline history for failing to disclose vehicle information, the Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with honesty, integrity, and in accordance with the law.

The proposed order to revoke the registrations was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Tribunal found a pattern of false and misleading conduct, including failing to disclose vehicle accident histories, providing false bills of sale, and a prior conviction under the Consumer Protection Act.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not carry on business with integrity, honesty, and in accordance with the law, and directed the Registrar to carry out the revocation.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to grant his motor vehicle salesperson registration with conditions.

The appellant argued that a 2017 Consent Order prevented the Registrar from considering his past conduct prior to 2017, and that any breaches of the Act were the fault of an unregistered salesperson who defrauded him.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that issue estoppel did not apply and the 2017 Consent Order was not binding because the appellant never registered under it.

The Tribunal held that the appellant's past conduct, including failing to discharge liens, failing to remit warranties, and employing an unregistered salesperson, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was ordered to carry out the proposal to grant registration with conditions.

The applicant commenced an application that was abandoned after early case management teleconferences.

The respondent sought approximately $8,000 in costs for the abandoned application.

The Divisional Court noted that its practice is not to award costs for case management attendances unless there is litigation misconduct, and the case management judge had not awarded costs.

Finding the respondent's costs claim unreasonable and excessive for the minor steps taken, the court declined to award any costs for the abandoned application or the costs motion.

The Registrar brought a motion to lift a stay of the Tribunal's order revoking the appellants' registrations as motor vehicle dealers and salespersons, alleging non-compliance with disclosure conditions.

Prior to the resumption of the motion, the parties agreed to terms to continue the stay.

The Tribunal issued a consent order continuing the stay subject to modified, detailed conditions regarding the disclosure of transaction documents to the Registrar.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered that the appellant be registered as a salesperson subject to a series of conditions for a two-year period, including compliance with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, employment only by an approved sponsoring dealer, and disclosure of material facts about motor vehicles.

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its principal, brought a motion to stay the Tribunal's order revoking their registrations pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appeal raised a serious issue, the appellants would suffer irreparable harm without a stay as the dealership was their sole source of income, and the balance of convenience favoured a stay provided conditions were imposed to protect the public.

The stay was granted subject to conditions including posting security and maintaining specific transaction records.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle salesperson and motor vehicle dealerships.

The Registrar alleged that the appellants failed to disclose previous accident damage to consumers, falsified bills of sale, failed to return deposits, and provided false statements on registration renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants engaged in a pattern of deception intended to avoid disclosure obligations, which afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that imposed conditions on his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson, specifically restricting his employment to an approved dealership.

The appellant argued that the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic constituted new evidence under Rule 18.2(d) of the Tribunal's Rules, making it difficult to find employment and comply with the condition.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the pandemic's impact was a change in circumstances arising after the hearing, rather than new evidence that existed at the time of the decision.

The appellants brought a motion for a stay of the Tribunal's order suspending their motor vehicle dealer and salesperson registrations pending their appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appeal raised a serious issue to be tried, the appellants would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted due to unrecoverable financial losses and the rendering of their appeal moot, and the balance of convenience favoured the appellants as there was no evidence they posed an urgent risk to the public.

The motion for a stay was granted.

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

The Registrar's refusal was based on the appellant's extensive criminal record, which included violent offences and breaches of conditions, as well as his failure to provide requested information regarding his immigration status and community supervision.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the registration.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's extensive criminal record, which included 20 convictions over 20 years for offences such as drug trafficking, assault, and weapons possession.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal concluded that the application was premature given the length and nature of the criminal record, and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.