Husein Panju

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant submitted false documents to OMVIC, the MTO, and an auto auction, and engaged in unregistered trading ('curbsiding') of salvage vehicles without disclosing their history to buyers.

The Tribunal found the Registrar proved the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant's conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal declined to impose conditions and directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to refuse registration.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Board of Trustees of the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Compensation Fund denying their claims for compensation.

The claims arose from undocumented transactions with a registered motor vehicle dealer whose registration was subsequently revoked.

The Board denied the claims due to a lack of evidence and argued the appellants' version of events was improbable.

The Tribunal found the appellants' testimony credible and consistent, despite the unusual circumstances and lack of documentation.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, ordering the Fund to pay $2,000 to the first appellant and $45,000 to the second appellant.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Tribunal found that the individual appellant failed to demonstrate a change in material circumstances since his previous refusal, barring his reapplication under s. 12 of the Act.

While the corporate appellant was not barred by s. 12, the Tribunal found that the individual appellant's extensive history of unregistered trading, odometer tampering, and impersonation afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the corporate appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant, a registered motor vehicle dealer, appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration issued by the Registrar.

The Tribunal found that the appellant repeatedly failed to disclose total loss declarations by insurers, failed to accurately disclose accident repair costs, and failed to maintain complete repair records for vehicles sold to consumers.

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

Finding that terms and conditions would not adequately protect the public interest, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant's registration.

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

At the start of the hearing, the appellant requested an adjournment, citing insufficient time to review the respondent's materials and work commitments.

The respondent objected, arguing the appellant had received the materials electronically months prior and that an adjournment would prejudice its civilian witnesses.

The adjudicator granted the adjournment in part, ordering the hearing to commence so the respondent could call its case, but allowing flexibility for the appellant's work schedule and adjourning the hearing to new dates for the appellant to present his case.

The appellant appealed a decision denying his claim for compensation from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund following a dealership's receivership.

The Fund provides compensation only to consumers, not for business transactions.

The appellant argued he purchased the vehicle for personal use, despite having purchased 14 other vehicles for export to Ecuador.

The Tribunal found the evidence, including the involvement of a global shipping company and the timing of the purchases, indicated the vehicle was purchased as part of a business venture.

The appeal was dismissed.