Michael Rusek

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perfetto J. dated July 18, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no costs for or against any party.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that directed the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The appellant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by proceeding without his documents or witnesses, re-litigating settled civil issues, and relying on conduct not alleged in the Notice of Proposal.

He also alleged errors of fact regarding his acceptance of responsibility and evidence of a hacked Instagram account.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness or errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Counsel (OMVIC) to produce documents related to its investigation into alleged fraudulent purchases by the defendants.

OMVIC, though not a party to the main litigation, was the subject of the motion and resisted disclosure, citing statutory privilege under section 36(1) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the MVDA created a robust statutory privilege that prevented OMVIC from disclosing the requested information, even after the investigation concluded, and that the exceptions to the privilege did not apply to disclosure in a civil action.

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

The appellant had previously been refused registration in 2020 due to dishonest conduct in vehicle transactions.

The Tribunal found that the appellant presented new evidence of his recent licensing in the financial services industry and re-enlistment in the Canadian Armed Forces, allowing him to reapply.

While the Tribunal agreed with the Registrar that the appellant's past conduct provided reasonable grounds for belief that he might not carry on business with honesty and integrity, it found that his subsequent conduct and remorse demonstrated that comprehensive conditions would adequately protect the public interest.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to register the appellant subject to strict conditions, including educational requirements and a prohibition on acting as a person-in-charge.

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 Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration of the appellant as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties waived a hearing and consented to an order directing the Registrar to register the appellant subject to specific conditions, including restrictions on acting as a General Manager or having direct supervisory authority over registered salespersons.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's past conduct, specifically his 2020 convictions for evading income tax and failing to remit HST during the 2014 and 2015 tax years while employed as a general manager of a registered dealer.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's willful and sophisticated scheme to evade over $117,000 in taxes constituted a breach of trust and demonstrated a willingness to contravene the law for personal financial gain.

The Tribunal concluded that this past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant 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 revoke the registration.

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 Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of Platinum Cars Inc. as a motor vehicle dealer and Shaun Jalili as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The appellants appealed the proposal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

During the hearing, the parties reached an agreement to resolve all issues.

The Tribunal issued a consent order directing that the Registrar will not carry out the revocation, and the registrations will be subject to conditions agreed upon in the Minutes of Settlement.

The appellant, a motor vehicle dealer selling electric vehicles, appealed an Order to Cease False Advertising issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant's website was misleading because it deducted unrealized future fuel savings from the vehicle's purchase price, presenting an unattainable point-of-sale price.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that, from the perspective of a credulous and inexperienced consumer, the repeated use of terms like 'savings', 'future', and 'potential' alongside the actual purchase price was easily understood.

The Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe the website was false, misleading, or deceptive, and vacated the Registrar's order.

The appellants brought a motion for a stay of the Tribunal's order suspending their motor vehicle dealer and salesperson registrations pending their appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appeal raised a serious issue to be tried, the appellants would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted due to unrecoverable financial losses and the rendering of their appeal moot, and the balance of convenience favoured the appellants as there was no evidence they posed an urgent risk to the public.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The appellant, a registered motor vehicle dealer and salesperson, sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that directed the Registrar to carry out a proposal to refuse and revoke his registrations.

The original decision found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with law, integrity, and honesty due to his failure to notify the Registrar of a criminal charge and his conspiracy to roll back a vehicle's odometer.

On reconsideration, the appellant argued for leniency and maintained his innocence regarding the odometer tampering.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the appellant failed to establish any error of fact or law, or any violation of procedural fairness in the original decision.

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that directed the Registrar not to carry out a proposal to refuse the appellant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal applied the wrong standard of proof, improperly relied on an email, and failed to follow the Divisional Court's directions regarding the appellant's past criminal charges and outstanding warrant.

The Associate Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that even if the standard of proof was misstated, the Tribunal would not likely have reached a different decision, and that the Tribunal properly considered the evidence and the Divisional Court's directions.

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

The Registrar's proposal was based on the Appellant's outstanding criminal charges in Alberta, including assault and failure to appear in court.

Following a Divisional Court order for a trial de novo, the Tribunal considered new evidence showing the Appellant had resolved the outstanding charges, resulting in a fine for assault and the withdrawal of the failure to appear charge.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant's delay in addressing the charges did not demonstrate a pattern of ungovernability or a risk to the public.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove the Appellant would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellants appealed the Registrar's proposals to refuse the registration of their motor vehicle dealership and revoke their registrations as salespersons.

The Registrar alleged that the appellants' past conduct, including involvement in odometer rollbacks, obtaining fraudulent replacement ownerships for stolen vehicles, and breaching registration conditions, demonstrated they would not carry on business in accordance with the law, integrity, and honesty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellants' evidence lacked credibility and that their past conduct established reasonable grounds to believe they would not act with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposals to refuse and revoke the registrations.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of Trustees of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund denying his claim for $23,000.

The appellant had paid a registered car dealer for a vehicle, but the dealer failed to deliver it, transferred it to a third party, and subsequently declared bankruptcy.

The appellant paid the third party $23,000 to recover the vehicle and sought compensation from the Fund.

The Tribunal found that the purchase was a consumer transaction and that the appellant's loss flowed directly from his payment to the bankrupt dealer.

The appeal was allowed, and the Board was directed to pay the appellant $23,000 from the Fund.

The appellant applied for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson to work at his brother's dealership.

The Registrar proposed to grant the registration subject to several conditions due to the appellant's criminal record and previous false statements on a 2012 application.

The appellant appealed two conditions: Condition 6, which prohibited him from applying to be a dealer, and Condition 9, which prohibited him from working at his brother's dealership for four years.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld Condition 6, finding it appropriate to ensure the appellant works under the supervision of a registered dealer.

However, the Tribunal rejected Condition 9, finding that the brother, as a registered dealer with a clean compliance record, has a legal obligation and strong incentive to properly supervise the appellant.

The Registrar was directed to grant the registration subject to all proposed conditions except Condition 9.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson due to outstanding criminal charges and a warrant in Alberta.

Following a Divisional Court decision remitting the matter for a new hearing, the Tribunal heard evidence that the appellant had scheduled a trial for the outstanding charges.

The Tribunal adjourned the appeal and ordered the parties to provide submissions regarding the trial outcomes before rendering a final decision on the registration.

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

The Tribunal based its decision on the appellant's dishonest reporting of pending charges on two occasions, despite the absence of other complaints regarding sexual misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable as the Registrar relies on honest reporting to monitor the industry.

No costs were awarded.