9 total
Motion to extend time to appeal registration revocation granted; four-day delay deemed insignificant.
The appellants filed an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to revoke their motor vehicle dealer registrations four days after the expiry of the 15-day statutory appeal period.
They brought a motion to extend the time limit under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999.
Applying the Frey factors, the Tribunal found that while the appellants did not demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the period, the four-day delay was insignificant, the prejudice to the respondent was not significant, and the appeal had merit.
The Tribunal concluded that the justice of the case favoured granting the extension.
Motor vehicle dealer registrations revoked after director obstructed inspection and failed to produce required documents.
The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.
The Registrar alleged that the individual appellant, as the sole director of the corporate appellant, obstructed an inspection by failing to produce required documents for nearly a year, claiming they were stolen by former business partners.
The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide reasonably necessary assistance during the inspection and deliberately withheld information from the inspector.
Concluding that the appellant's 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, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the revocation order in full.
Motor vehicle dealer registration reinstated with conditions prohibiting bankrupt spouse's involvement in the business.
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.
Appeals combined and temporary suspension order extended on consent pending case conference.
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.
Registration reinstated with conditions despite finding that appellant submitted a falsified zoning letter.
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.
Tribunal consolidates motor vehicle dealer registration appeals and extends temporary suspension order pending hearing.
The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (ITSO) issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.
At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the appellants' four separate appeals into a single proceeding on consent, noting identical underlying allegations regarding their dealership's financial conduct.
The Tribunal also extended the ITSO until the conclusion of the hearing to protect the public interest and granted an adjournment to facilitate settlement discussions and document exchange.
Proposal to revoke motor vehicle dealer registration set aside as Registrar failed to prove non-compliance.
The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's motor vehicle dealer registration, alleging that the past conduct of its sole officer, specifically failing to comply with all-in pricing regulations, afforded reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while there were two prior disciplinary orders for non-compliance, the evidence regarding the most recent alleged non-compliance showed the appellant was actually including the administration fee in the advertised price.
The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to meet its burden and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.
Motor vehicle dealer and salesperson registrations refused due to lack of financial responsibility and unresolved CRA lien.
The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse their registrations as a motor vehicle salesperson and a motor vehicle dealer under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.
The Registrar argued that neither the individual nor the corporate appellant could reasonably be expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of business.
The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial viability, presented unrealistic business plans, and failed to resolve or adequately explain a $35,324 CRA tax lien against the corporation.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the registrations.
Motion to extend time to appeal refusal of motor vehicle salesperson registration denied.
The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.
The Notice of Appeal was filed 27 days after the 15-day appeal period expired.
Applying the factors for an extension of time, the Tribunal found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the period, the delay was significant and unjustified, granting the extension would prejudice the public interest, and the appeal lacked merit given the appellant's admitted failure to return a consumer deposit.
The motion for an extension of time was denied.
