Rishi Nageshar

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle salesperson and dealership.

The Registrar alleged the appellants transferred ownership of six revinned or stolen luxury vehicles into the dealership's name and falsified documents to transfer them back to the original owners after police seized one.

The Tribunal found the appellants' past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal rejected the appellants' claim of being victims of fraud, finding wilful blindness and a lack of insight.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations, concluding that terms and conditions would not adequately protect the public interest.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealer and its salesperson based on allegations of fraudulent vehicle registrations and breaches of prior consent orders.

The Tribunal found that the salesperson had improperly registered a vehicle using an invalid bill of sale, breaching the conditions of registration and providing reasonable grounds to believe business would not be carried on with integrity and honesty.

However, the Tribunal found this was an isolated incident and not a systematic abuse of the public.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to revoke the registrations, but instead to impose an eight-month suspension on the salesperson and attach strict conditions regarding liens and out-of-province vehicle registrations to the dealer's registration.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision regarding the revocation of a motor vehicle dealer's registration.

The appellant Registrar opposed the motion, arguing the LAT's intervention would defend its own decision and compromise impartiality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the LAT's proposed factum provided a nuanced analysis of the standard of review without taking a position on the merits, thereby offering a useful contribution without raising impartiality concerns.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the Registrar's refusal to register him as a motor vehicle salesperson due to past misconduct involving sexually explicit and inappropriate messages sent to a former co-worker and a customer.

On appeal, the appellant argued procedural unfairness, alleging ineffective assistance by his paralegal and improper admission of hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish the factual basis for ineffective assistance of counsel and that the tribunal's admission of hearsay evidence, including the appellant's own admissions against interest, did not render the hearing unfair.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal (NOP) issued by the Registrar to refuse and revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Tribunal found that the individual appellant engaged in a pattern of deceptive business practices, including acting as an unregistered salesperson, falsifying documents, taking out unauthorized repair loans in consumers' names, and responding abusively to consumer complaints.

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

Finding that the appellants were ungovernable and had previously breached terms and conditions, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the NOP to revoke the registrations.

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 appellant sought a stay pending appeal of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The appellant's motion materials claimed he would suffer irreparable harm by losing his existing licence and livelihood.

However, the court found that the appellant had not been licensed for over two years and was applying for a new registration.

Because a stay would merely maintain the status quo of him being unlicensed, he could not establish irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed, and the court noted serious concerns about the appellant's counsel misrepresenting facts in the motion materials.

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 Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealer and its sole director/salesperson.

The Tribunal found that the appellants engaged in past conduct that afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

Specifically, the appellants falsely represented odometer readings on three vehicles by rolling them back, failed to maintain required records, and failed to disclose material facts on bills of sale.

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

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to suspend their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salespersons under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The proposal arose from allegations that the appellants failed to appropriately respond to a consumer complaint and requests for information.

At a case conference, the parties resolved the issues and consented to an order continuing the appellants' registrations subject to specific terms and conditions.

The Tribunal issued a consent order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing minor variances for a newly constructed deck on the neighbouring property.

The variances sought a reduced side yard setback and an increased deck height.

The Tribunal qualified the applicant's planner as an expert witness, whose uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the 0.4 metre intrusion into the side yard setback would not have an undue impact on privacy given the 30 metre separation between the properties.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, a construction company and its principal, for breach of a home renovation contract.

The defendants were noted in default after failing to properly file a notice of intent to defend.

The court found that the defendants breached the contract, provided limited labour and materials, and misappropriated funds, resulting in unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff was awarded $78,636.97 in damages for overpayments and remedial costs, plus partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence and dismiss their counterclaim for failing to comply with previous court orders regarding undertakings and appointing legal counsel for the corporate defendant.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the defendants had not shown a wanton disregard for the rules, noting that the COVID-19 pandemic and financial hardship caused the delays.

Instead, the court granted lesser remedies, including allowing the individual defendant to represent the corporate defendant and ordering third-party disclosure to satisfy the outstanding undertakings.