Adam Varro

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal three decisions of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties failed to upload costs submissions as required under the Consolidated Practice Direction, the court made no order as to costs.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action as an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, whose license to practice law was previously revoked for professional misconduct, commenced a new action against the Law Society of Ontario and its counsel, alleging malfeasance in public office.

The court found that the action was a continuation of previously litigated issues and exhibited hallmarks of vexatious litigation, including repeated attempts to re-litigate matters already decided and naming opposing counsel as defendants.

The court also held that the defendants’ conduct was protected by absolute privilege.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as motor vehicle dealers and salespersons, and to refuse a new corporate registration.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the business manager forging signatures on bills of sale and the principal's repeated failure to disclose an Environmental Protection Act conviction on renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the principal's past conduct, including his failure to provide adequate oversight, his disregard for employment restrictions placed on the business manager, and his repeated false statements to the regulator, afforded reasonable grounds to believe the appellants 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.

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

The Registrar's proposal was based on the business manager forging signatures on bills of sale and the principal's repeated failure to disclose an Environmental Protection Act conviction on renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the principal's past conduct, including a lack of oversight that permitted the forgeries and his wilful blindness or recklessness in providing false statements to OMVIC, afforded reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke and refuse the registrations, finding that terms and conditions would not sufficiently protect the public.

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

The appellant admitted to forging bills of sale and submitting false documents to Service Ontario to transfer two vehicles on behalf of his father, claiming he was justified due to a dispute with another dealer.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's admitted misconduct provided reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal concluded that the public interest could not be adequately protected by granting registration with conditions, as the appellant failed to accept responsibility and viewed his illegal actions as justified.

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

The Registrar proposed to revoke the cannabis retail operator licence of Havok Global Limited and the cannabis retail manager licence of Dr. Gerald Goldlist, alleging past conduct issues involving Dr. Goldlist and his son, Michael.

The Tribunal found no reasonable grounds to believe Dr. Goldlist would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, or the public interest, noting his 45-year unblemished career as a physician and accepting his explanation regarding a 2018 break-in at an illegal dispensary.

The Tribunal also found that Michael was not an 'interested person' in Havok, as he had no beneficial interest, control, or financing role in the business.

The notices of proposal to revoke the licences were set aside.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order.

The LTB order was made on consent, requiring the tenant to vacate the premises and pay rental arrears.

The tenant appealed, arguing procedural fairness issues regarding notice to other alleged tenants, and obtained an automatic stay of eviction.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it was an abuse of process designed to delay eviction while rent remained unpaid.

The court also noted the tenant failed to seek the required leave to appeal a consent order under section 133 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his application for a cannabis retail manager licence.

The Registrar argued the appellant was ineligible due to past conduct, including involvement in an illegal dispensary, a prior conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking, and outstanding civil litigation involving allegations of bad faith.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant did not intentionally mislead the Registrar on his application, his concerning conduct regarding the illegal dispensary and the serious allegations in the ongoing civil litigation provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty, integrity, or in the public interest.

The proposal to refuse the licence was confirmed.