Brian Osler

An appeal from a conviction under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2007 for acting as a motor vehicle dealer without being registered.

The trial was conducted ex parte in the absence of the defendant.

The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, finding that the trial judge failed to conduct the required inquiry into whether an ex parte trial was appropriate, particularly given the prosecution's intention to seek a custodial sentence.

The court found that the procedural history demonstrated inadequate notice to the defendant and no proper consideration of the defendant's right to be present at trial, amounting to a miscarriage of justice.

The applicant sought release from custody pending appeal of his convictions for engaging in an unfair practice contrary to the Consumer Protection Act and carrying on business as a motor vehicle dealer without registration contrary to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

The applicant was sentenced to consecutive jail terms totalling approximately 15 months.

The court applied the three-pronged test for release pending appeal: whether the appeal is frivolous, whether the applicant would surrender into custody, and whether detention is necessary in the public interest.

The court found the grounds of appeal were not viable, the applicant presented a flight risk given his history of using aliases and false documents, and detention was necessary in the public interest given the applicant's pattern of repeated offences and lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal.

The appellant brought a class action alleging that the respondent transmission repair franchisor breached consumer protection legislation by charging an 'Inspection Service' fee, which the appellant characterized as an illegal fee for an estimate when repairs are authorized and carried out.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding the fee was for the labour required to remove and reinstall the transmission, not for an estimate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing with the motion judge's statutory interpretation and finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment dismissing a certified class action against a vehicle repair franchisor.

The class alleged the franchisor breached the Motor Vehicle Repair Act and Consumer Protection Act by charging estimate fees for an 'Inspection Service' when repairs were authorized.

On appeal, the plaintiff sought to admit fresh evidence of a training manual that contradicted the franchisor's evidence and had not been disclosed during cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding the due diligence test less significant when the opposing party failed to disclose it.

The court set aside the summary judgment, concluding the motions judge lacked a full record and a genuine issue for trial existed regarding conspiracy.