Jane Samler

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse its registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant's officers failed to disclose required information, made false statements on applications, lacked financial responsibility after a $30 million loan was called in, and traded vehicles while unregistered.

The Tribunal found that while the officers did fail to disclose certain information and made false statements regarding the loan, the Registrar did not prove the appellant lacked financial responsibility or traded vehicles illegally in Ontario.

The Tribunal concluded that outright refusal was not required to protect the public interest and ordered the Registrar to approve the registration subject to strict conditions.

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

The parties reached an agreement and requested a consent order without a hearing, which the Tribunal denied, citing the statutory requirement to hold a hearing under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

Following a hearing on the agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal ordered the jointly proposed conditions, with the exception of one condition deemed unenforceable, to address the appellants' past conduct failures including failure to produce records and trading out of class.

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant made false statements on multiple applications by denying he had been charged with criminal offences and denying he had active collections against him.

The Registrar also alleged past conduct lacking integrity and honesty, including aggressive behaviour, racial slurs, and sexually explicit statements directed at former coworkers.

The Tribunal found the Registrar established the grounds for refusal and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salespersons.

The Tribunal found that the controlling mind of the dealership repeatedly made false representations to consumers regarding vehicle conditions, odometer readings, and accident histories, and failed to disclose material facts on bills of sale.

The Tribunal concluded that this past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the dealer and its controlling mind would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations of the dealer and its controlling mind, but declined to make an order regarding the other salesperson as her registration had already expired.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal (NOP) issued by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as motor vehicle salespersons and a motor vehicle dealer.

The Tribunal found that the individual appellants and the corporate appellant were interested persons in respect of one another.

The Tribunal determined that the appellants engaged in a pattern of deceptive business practices, including forging consumer signatures, failing to disclose accident histories, and violating all-in pricing requirements.

Finding that the appellants' past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the NOP and revoke the registrations.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as motor vehicle dealers and salespersons.

The Tribunal found that the appellants engaged in severe misconduct, including forging consumer signatures, selling vehicles without consent, failing to complete consignment contracts, and failing to promptly remit sale proceeds.

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

The appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the salesperson sexually assaulted and extorted a customer, failed to provide written contracts, and failed to report criminal charges.

The Tribunal granted a confidentiality order to protect the complainant's identity.

The Tribunal found the complainant's evidence credible and concluded that the salesperson's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal also found that the salesperson was an interested person in the corporate dealer, and that the dealer's officer made false statements on renewal applications.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to apply conditions to his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar argued that the appellant's past conduct, including acting as an unregistered salesperson and dealer, and his involvement in a dealership's failure to pay out liens, afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant's past conduct established reasonable grounds for concern, the public interest could be adequately protected by granting registration subject to the conditions proposed by the Registrar for a period of four years.

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

The parties reached a settlement agreement and applied for a Consent Order without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the request and ordered that the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement be incorporated into the Order, concluding the matter.

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant falsified information relating to the sale and financing of 15 vehicles while working as a Financial Services Manager, resulting in over $1 million in losses to lenders.

The Registrar also alleged she made false statements on two subsequent applications for registration regarding the reason for her termination.

The Tribunal found the appellant's conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that she would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and that she intentionally made false statements on her applications.

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

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of the appellants as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The parties reached a resolution and executed Minutes of Settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a Consent Order continuing the appellants' registrations subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Minutes of Settlement, and the appeal was withdrawn.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision revoking their motor vehicle dealer registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The tribunal found the appellants sold vehicles with false safety certificates, failed to disclose material defects, and breached registration conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the tribunal's factual findings and concluding that the penalty of revocation was not clearly unfit given the serious misconduct.

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant's past conduct, including attempting a sham transaction to refinance his aunt's vehicle and trading without registration, afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant breached the Act, he genuinely, if mistakenly, believed his actions were permissible.

Given his 22-year unblemished record and remorse, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the proposal and directed that the appellant be registered subject to conditions, including completing an OMVIC course and restrictions on signing sales contracts.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision directing the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The original refusal was based on the appellant's past conduct regarding a disappeared vehicle during his bankruptcy and a false statement on his application.

The appellant alleged numerous errors of fact and law in the Tribunal's decision.

The adjudicator found no significant errors of law or fact that would have likely led to a different decision and dismissed the request for reconsideration.

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

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's past financial conduct, including a bankruptcy and the disappearance of a financed vehicle, as well as false statements made on his application.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and that he knowingly made false statements on his application.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration, finding that conditions would not sufficiently address the concerns.

The appellant purchased a used vehicle from a registered dealer for a road trip to New Jersey.

The vehicle's engine failed during the return trip.

After the dealer refused to remedy the deficiency, the appellant sued in Small Claims Court but her claim was dismissed based on caveat emptor.

She then claimed compensation from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund, which the Board denied on the basis that it was bound by the Small Claims Court dismissal.

On appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found that it was not bound by the prior judgment, as applying issue estoppel would work an injustice given the trial judge's misapprehension of the law.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding the vehicle had a deficiency material to the trade, and awarded $1,375 (USD) for the engine and muffler replacement.

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

The Registrar alleged the Appellant used a customer's credit card without authorization, made false statements, and failed to disclose information on applications for registration.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant's unauthorized use of a customer's credit card, failure to reimburse an overpayment, failure to provide full disclosure on multiple applications, 11 driver's licence suspensions, and 50 Highway Traffic Act convictions afforded reasonable grounds for the belief that he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

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.

The Registrar cited the Appellant's past conduct, including previous tribunal decisions refusing his registrations due to inadequate safety inspections and false statements, as well as concerns about his financial responsibility regarding an outstanding CRA debt.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate manageable control over his finances and lacked credibility.

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant did not meet the requirements for registration under section 6(1) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, and failed to show a material change in circumstances under section 12.

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

The applicants, a motor vehicle dealer and its principal, brought a motion for further documentary disclosure from the Registrar in an appeal of a proposal to suspend their registrations.

The Tribunal held that while its own rules only require disclosure of documents a party intends to rely on, the Stinchcombe principles of disclosure apply in administrative proceedings where a registrant faces suspension or revocation of their livelihood.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to disclose all relevant, non-privileged documents, erring on the side of inclusion, but dismissed the applicants' request to review the Registrar's files themselves or obtain names of former employees.

The applicant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the applicant's prior criminal conviction for using forged documents to obtain a loan, a consumer proposal, and concerns about his honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal found the applicant's explanation of his criminal charge lacked credibility and noted his lack of candour during the hearing.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.