Jonathan Gross

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle salesperson and dealership due to non-compliance with garage register requirements, late remittance of warranty payments, failure to remit HST, and breach of agreed terms and conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the Registrar established reasonable grounds for belief that the appellants would not carry on business in accordance with the law, revocation was too severe a penalty given the appellants' 30-year unblemished record and subsequent remedial actions.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the revocation and instead imposed strict terms and conditions on the registrations.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellants' registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson, along with an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (ITSO).

The appellants appealed the proposal.

The Tribunal held a hearing to determine whether to extend the ITSO pending the conclusion of the appeal hearing.

The Registrar presented evidence of consumer complaints, including failure to disclose required engine repairs and failure to hold a $15,000 deposit in a trust account.

The Tribunal found a reasonable basis for the allegations and concluded it was in the public interest to extend the ITSO until the conclusion of the hearing.

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

The Registrar argued that the sole director's husband was an 'interested person' whose recent bankruptcy history indicated the appellant would not be financially responsible.

The Tribunal found that the husband was an interested person due to his initial involvement and potential to exercise control.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the public interest could be adequately protected by granting registration subject to strict conditions prohibiting the husband from having any beneficial interest, control, or financing role in the appellant's business.

The appeal was allowed and registration was reinstated with conditions.

The plaintiffs brought a summary judgment motion seeking return of their deposits and damages for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a condominium unit.

The defendant vendor brought a cross-motion for possession and damages.

The central issue was which party breached the APS by failing to close.

The vendor delivered a Statement of Adjustments containing approximately $60,000 in additional charges that were either unauthorized or unsupported by evidence.

The plaintiffs refused to close pending clarification or removal of these charges.

The court found the vendor's demand for additional payment constituted an anticipatory breach of contract, entitling the plaintiffs to terminate the agreement and recover their deposits.

The court also granted the vendor possession of the unit and damages for occupancy fees, property taxes, and condominium fees incurred during the plaintiffs' continued occupation.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (ITSO) under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered that the two appeals be combined into a single proceeding pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal also extended the ITSO for the dealership until the conclusion of the hearing to protect the public interest, while the ITSO for the appellant as a salesperson was no longer sought.

The hearing was adjourned to a case conference to facilitate settlement discussions.

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant submitted a falsified zoning letter in support of a dealership registration application.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did submit a falsified zoning letter, which afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and constituted a false statement in an application.

However, noting the appellant's otherwise spotless record and the lack of consumer complaints, the Tribunal concluded that outright revocation was not required.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal and instead reinstated the registration subject to conditions, including re-education.

The respondent Registrar sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that substituted the revocation of the appellants' motor vehicle dealer and salesperson registrations with terms and conditions.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction and made errors of fact and law by considering the quality of the regulator's investigation and finding the appellants mitigated harm.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it had jurisdiction under section 9(5) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to consider the investigation's fairness and that any factual errors in the original decision were inconsequential and would not have changed the result.

The appellants' request for costs was also dismissed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of two motor vehicle salespersons and their dealership due to alleged deceptive business practices by employees, including falsifying insurance documents, misrepresenting mandatory warranties, and failing to disclose structural damage.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, revocation was not the appropriate penalty.

The Tribunal noted the appellants' 20-year unblemished history, their prompt action upon learning of the misconduct, and the unfairness of the OMVIC investigation.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the revocation and instead attached conditions to the registrations, including mandatory OMVIC certification and the hiring of a compliance manager.

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.

This is an appeal from an order of the Commercial List judge concerning insolvency proceedings.

The appellants, Bryton, sought to exercise an option to purchase a property and obtain orders declaring the option valid and immune from challenge by other creditors under various acts (Fraudulent Conveyances Act, Assignments and Preferences Act, Canada Business Corporations Act oppression remedy, and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act).

The application judge dismissed Bryton's request for a vesting order and declaratory relief, finding that the claims were not res judicata and that declaratory relief was not the appropriate vehicle to pre-emptively bar unadjudicated creditor claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, confirming that the validity of the option was not res judicata and that the refusal to grant declaratory relief was a proper exercise of discretion, as the application procedure was not suitable for dismissing unproven claims.