Justin M. Jakubiak

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

The refusal was based on the appellant's past conduct, which included criminal convictions for break and enter with intent to commit assault with a weapon and mischief, for which he was still on probation, as well as a prior conviction for acting as an unregistered salesperson.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had not demonstrated a sufficient period of positive, unsupervised conduct.

Considering the seriousness of the criminal offences, his tendency to minimize his involvement, and his previous violation of the Act, the Tribunal concluded that his 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 directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal that refused or revoked their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

They argued they were denied procedural fairness by the Vice-Chair's conduct of the hearing.

The respondent conceded that the unrepresented appellant was denied procedural fairness because he was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal for the unrepresented appellant and remitted his matter for a rehearing.

However, the court dismissed the appeal for the represented appellants, finding that while the hearing was conducted perfunctorily, they were not denied basic procedural rights such as cross-examination.

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

The parties reached a settlement 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 issued a consent order incorporating the agreed terms, which included requirements for the appellants to comply with the Act, enroll in a certification course, and adhere to strict disclosure and advertising obligations.

The Applicants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse to register Platinum Auto Gallery Inc. and Behzad Rabie, and to revoke the registration of Jamie Giroux as motor vehicle salespersons.

The Tribunal found overwhelming evidence of poor business practices, including failing to disclose accident histories, selling unsafe vehicles, and bullying customers.

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicants' past conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe they would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal.

At a Commercial List case conference involving two related corporate disputes, the court addressed extensive procedural delays, voluminous filings, and lack of cooperation between counsel.

The proceedings involved claims relating to loan agreements, alleged rights to corporate shares, fiduciary duty breaches, and conspiracy allegations arising from financing arrangements and subsequent litigation.

The court declined to permit consolidation or bifurcation but ordered that both actions be heard together or sequentially.

Emphasizing proportionality under Rule 1.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court directed the parties to disclose damages calculations, draft opening statements, and detailed historical and projected litigation costs.

The directions aimed to enable meaningful case management and ensure efficient use of judicial resources.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the motor vehicle dealer and salesperson registrations of the applicants.

The applicants appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the individual applicant had misrepresented his father's identity to an inspector and admitted that his father was acting as a bookkeeper for the dealership, in direct breach of a prior Consent Order prohibiting the father's involvement.

The Tribunal concluded that the Registrar met the onus of establishing reasonable grounds for belief that the applicants would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

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

The defendants moved to set aside a default judgment and noting in default arising from a trailer lease dispute after several years of procedural delay.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing prejudice and reliance on the longstanding judgment and invoking the doctrine of laches.

Applying the flexible test for setting aside default judgments articulated in appellate jurisprudence, the court considered delay, explanation for the default, and whether the defendants had an arguable defence.

Although the litigation history involved significant delay attributable to financial difficulties and prior counsel, the court found the individual defendant had a potentially meritorious defence and that fairness favoured permitting the matter to be defended.

The court set aside the default judgment and noting in default, subject to the plaintiff’s ability to amend its statement of claim.

Following trial judgment awarding damages for breach of a software services agreement, the court determined prejudgment interest and costs.

The dispute concerned the appropriate start date for prejudgment interest and the reasonable quantum of partial indemnity costs.

The court held that prejudgment interest should run from the date the parties’ relationship effectively ended rather than the earlier project “go-live” date.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the plaintiff’s claimed legal fees by 10% while allowing disbursements in full.

Costs were fixed at $58,103.68 and prejudgment interest ordered at 1.3% from November 28, 2008.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke and refuse his registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the Consent Order, imposing conditions on the applicant's registration, including full disclosure, surrender of registration upon criminal conviction, and restrictions on acting as a dealer, partner, or investor prior to December 31, 2015.

The plaintiff purchased software from the defendant, who represented that the customer relationship management (CRM) and enterprise resource planning (ERP) modules would fully integrate.

The software failed to integrate due to character limitations and suffered from other functional defects.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the Sale of Goods Act.

The court found the individual defendant personally liable, as he had not contracted through his corporation.

The court held the defendant liable for negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty, assessing the residual value of the defective software at 33.33% and awarding the plaintiff $126,932.35 in damages.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying him an extension of time to request a hearing regarding the Registrar's proposal to revoke his motor vehicle dealer registration.

The appellant had missed the 15-day deadline by three days.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the LAT's decision, finding that the LAT reasonably applied the Frey v. Macdonald factors, including the lack of a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay, and the lack of merit to the appeal.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the registration of a motor vehicle dealer and its salesperson following the dealer's guilty pleas to two counts of fraud over $5,000 related to improperly changing Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) on rebuilt vehicles.

The Tribunal found that while the convictions were serious and industry-related, significant mitigating factors existed.

The dealer cooperated with police, took educational courses, retained an expert to ensure future compliance, and spent $66,000 to repurchase the affected vehicles, ensuring no consumer suffered financial loss.

The Tribunal concluded the past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds to believe the dealer would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering it to pay $25,000 to the respondent for breach of a software development contract.

The appellant argued there was no contract because the trial judge found no consensus ad idem on the project's scope, and that rescission was improperly ordered.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that an enforceable contract existed for the product the appellant intended to deliver, which the appellant repudiated.

The court upheld the order for restitution due to a total failure of consideration.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the registration of a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Tribunal had excused the respondents' failure to disclose numerous prior convictions due to language barriers and ignorance of the law.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly assess whether the respondents' past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity in the future.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke his motor vehicle dealer registration.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, including numerous undisclosed Highway Traffic Act convictions related to operating an inspection station, afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of natural justice and concluding that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and supported by ample evidence.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to set aside a consent order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in principle by holding her discretion was circumscribed by the factors in Chitel v. Rothbart.

The Court held the discretion is broader and should be exercised to achieve the justice of the case, noting reasonable grounds to question the default judgment and that funds were available before the return date of the motion.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an order requiring them to post security for costs.

The plaintiffs had made a proposal to creditors under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, meaning the proceeds of the action would benefit the creditors.

The motions judge ordered security for costs, finding the plaintiffs were nominal and the creditors who stood to benefit had not shown an inability to post security.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general importance.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The parties filed minutes of settlement with the court.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on consent in accordance with the minutes of settlement, noting that it was not passing judgment on the merits of the lower court's decision.