Brian Osler

The appellants appealed a director's decision under the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000, which partially affirmed inspector's orders following a carbon monoxide poisoning incident.

The appellants argued the director erred by relying on insufficient evidence from an inadequate investigation and breached procedural fairness by holding a written hearing and failing to order document production.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the director properly weighed the evidence in an administrative context and that the written hearing met the requisite duty of fairness.

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 appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, along with immediate suspension orders.

At the commencement of the hearing, the appellants consented to the continuation of their immediate suspensions until the conclusion of the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the continuation of the suspensions, joined the related appeal files, and adjourned the matters to an in-person case conference.

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 Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson, alleging he induced dealers to rent property using forged zoning documents and misled the Registrar.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while it was not proven the appellant personally forged the documents, he was complicit in a scheme to rent property under false pretences and provided forged zoning letters to tenants knowing they would be used in registration applications.

Finding the appellant lacked integrity and honesty, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke his registration.

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 Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering the Registrar not to carry out a proposal to refuse the respondent's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The respondent had a criminal conviction for arson and provided inaccurate details about it during the application process.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law by focusing on whether the respondent deliberately intended to mislead rather than whether he knowingly made false statements.

The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and directed the Registrar to refuse the registration.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of SM Auto Rental Ltd. as a motor vehicle dealer and Baldev-Raj Mehta as a salesperson.

The proposal was based on allegations that Mehta assisted a friend in making false statements and non-disclosures on the friend's applications for registration in 2005 and 2012.

The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence of a deliberate intention to deceive on the part of the appellants, noting a language barrier and plausible explanations for the answers provided.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, alleging involvement in misleading advertising at the dealerships where he worked and dishonest conduct surrounding his personal bankruptcy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no control over the advertising at the dealerships and that the Registrar failed to provide evidence supporting the allegations of deceit regarding his bankruptcy.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal, allowing the appellant to maintain his registration.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the registrations of Dickson Motor Sales and Leasing Inc. as a motor vehicle dealer and Cameron Scott Dickson as a salesperson, alleging misappropriation of funds, falsification of documents, and failure to properly record transactions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct, including an acknowledgement of producing false invoices and taking unrecorded cash, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

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

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

The Registrar cited the applicant's past conduct, including a fraudulent financing scheme at a previous dealership and false statements on registration applications.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had engaged in extensive frauds on financial institutions and failed to disclose collection efforts.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's past behaviour rebutted the legislative presumption of honest dealing and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

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.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act proposed to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle salesperson and his dealership, alleging fraudulent financing practices and failure to conduct business with honesty and integrity.

The allegations stemmed from a police investigation into the dealership's practice of having clients sign blank bills of sale and manipulating numbers to secure financing for clients with negative equity.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while having clients sign blank documents was a bad business practice, there was no evidence of dishonest intent or fraud.

The Tribunal noted that the clients had not complained, the financial institutions accepted the financing practices, and the police investigation was flawed.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The applicant brought a motion to stay a Licence Appeal Tribunal hearing regarding the revocation of his motor vehicle dealer registration, pending the outcome of his civil lawsuit against the Registrar in the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant argued that the civil action, which alleged bad faith and ulterior motives by the Registrar, could render the Tribunal hearing moot and that proceeding would cause irreparable harm through unrecoverable legal costs and the risk of inconsistent findings.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant would not suffer irreparable harm.

Furthermore, the balance of inconvenience favoured proceeding with the hearing, as the public interest in timely regulatory oversight under consumer protection legislation outweighed the low risk of inconsistent findings.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

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

The Registrar proposed refusal based on the Applicant's recent criminal convictions for violent offences, his current probationary status, and false statements made in his application regarding the circumstances of his convictions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant provided false and misleading information to the Registrar and failed to fully disclose the details of his convictions.

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The Applicants brought a motion for an interim order permitting them to carry on business as a motor vehicle dealer pending a hearing into the Registrar's proposal to refuse their registration renewal.

The Applicants had filed their renewal application two days after the expiry date.

They argued that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant interim registration based on statutory interpretation, natural justice, and the power to prevent abuse of process.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no denial of natural justice or abuse of process, and concluding it lacked jurisdiction to substantively vary the Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration into a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of the corporate applicant as a motor vehicle dealer and the individual applicant as a salesperson, alleging they breached conditions of their registrations by allowing an unregistered individual to be involved in their business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar failed to provide clear and convincing proof of the alleged breaches.

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

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealer and two salespersons following criminal convictions related to operating a 'chop shop' and possession of property obtained by crime.

The parties reached a resolution and jointly requested a consent order waiving a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the Notice of Proposal in accordance with the agreed terms, which included the withdrawal of appeals by the dealer and one salesperson, and strict conditions on the remaining salesperson's registration.

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

The Applicant's previous registration was revoked in 2006, resulting in a Consent Order prohibiting his involvement in a specific dealership.

In his new application, he failed to disclose a 2011 conviction for making a false statement under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to provide full disclosure and breached the 2006 Consent Order by continuing to be involved with the dealership.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal to Refuse Registration.

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.