17 total
Motion to extend time to appeal refusal of motor vehicle dealer registration dismissed.
The appellants brought a motion to extend the time to file an appeal from a Notice of Proposal to Refuse their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.
The appellants filed their appeal approximately 34 days after the statutory 15-day appeal period expired.
The Tribunal applied the four-factor test from Manuel v. Registrar, finding that the appellants lacked a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was significant without reasonable justification, and the appeal lacked merit given the appellant's past conduct and failure to demonstrate a material change in circumstances.
The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.
Consent order granted issuing motor vehicle salesperson registration subject to conditions and compensation fund repayment.
The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.
After three days of hearing, the parties reached an agreement to grant the registration subject to conditions, including a five-year prohibition on being a partner or director of a dealer, and a requirement to repay $37,000 to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order reflecting the agreement and disposing of the appeal without further hearing.
Appeal of motor vehicle dealer registration revocation dismissed; tribunal findings of false safety certificates upheld.
The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision revoking their motor vehicle dealer registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.
The tribunal found the appellants sold vehicles with false safety certificates, failed to disclose material defects, and breached registration conditions.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the tribunal's factual findings and concluding that the penalty of revocation was not clearly unfit given the serious misconduct.
Motor vehicle salesperson's registration revoked for forging customer documents and failing to disclose criminal convictions.
The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke her registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.
The Registrar alleged she falsified customer information to obtain special discounts and failed to disclose criminal convictions for impaired and dangerous driving on her renewal applications.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly made false statements on her applications and engaged in repeated incidents of creating forged documents.
The Tribunal concluded that her past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe she 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 to revoke her registration.
Motor vehicle salesperson's registration revoked for forging documents and failing to disclose criminal convictions.
The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke her registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.
The Registrar alleged that the appellant falsified customer information to obtain special discounts and failed to disclose criminal convictions for impaired and dangerous driving on her renewal applications.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly made false statements on her applications and engaged in serious misconduct by forging documents.
The Tribunal concluded that her past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe she would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.
The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.
Motor vehicle dealer registration refused due to applicant's misleading statements about past assault conviction.
The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse their registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.
The individual appellant had previously pled guilty to assault with sexual connotations against a driving student and received a conditional discharge.
The Tribunal found that the appellant's misleading statements to the regulator regarding the assault, his blaming of the victim, and his persistent refusal to discuss the matter demonstrated a lack of honesty, integrity, and governability.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the registrations.
Motor vehicle dealer registration refused due to poor trucking safety record and false application statements.
The appellants appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse their registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.
The Tribunal found that the appellants' past conduct, specifically the poor safety record and numerous convictions of their trucking business, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.
Furthermore, the individual appellant made false statements on the applications regarding past refusals and convictions.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.
Motor vehicle salesperson registration refused due to criminal convictions and false statements on renewal applications.
The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.
The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's past criminal convictions, including criminal harassment and mischief, and his failure to disclose these convictions on past renewal applications.
The Tribunal found that the appellant's criminal record, combined with his lack of honesty and integrity regarding his convictions and reliance on an expired pardon, provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law, with integrity, or with honesty.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the registration.
Motion to stay revocation of motor vehicle dealer registration denied for failure to show irreparable harm.
The appellant, a motor vehicle dealer, brought a motion to stay an order revoking his registration pending his appeal.
Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the level of assistance provided to the self-represented appellant at the original hearing, the appellant failed to establish irreparable harm.
The appellant's evidence regarding financial harm and loss of business was contradictory and unsupported by documentary evidence.
Furthermore, the balance of inconvenience favoured denying the stay due to the public interest in preventing the appellant from operating in violation of the Act.
The motion for a stay was denied.
Motor vehicle dealer registration revoked due to atrocious recordkeeping and failure to comply with conditions.
The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle dealer.
The Registrar alleged that the Appellant failed to provide access to his books and records, operated from unregistered addresses, and maintained incomplete and inaccurate bills of sale.
The Tribunal found that the Appellant's recordkeeping was atrocious, he failed to comply with conditions on his licence, and he deceived a purchaser regarding an odometer reading.
The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.
The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was ordered to revoke the registration.
Salesperson registration refusal quashed; past US conviction and application disclosure did not demonstrate lack of integrity.
The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.
The Registrar alleged the appellant's 2011 US conviction for attempting to firebomb a DMV building demonstrated a lack of integrity, and that his application contained false statements minimizing his conduct.
The Tribunal found the appellant had made full disclosure of his conviction and plea deal, and did not deliberately mislead the Registrar.
Given the specific nature of the past offence and the appellant's history of honest dealings with consumers, the Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.
The Registrar was ordered not to carry out the proposal.
Tribunal loses jurisdiction to continue hearing after appellant withdraws appeal of registration revocation.
The appellant withdrew his appeal of a Notice of Proposal to revoke his motor vehicle dealer registration.
The respondent Registrar filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal continue with the hearing despite the withdrawal.
The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that it lost jurisdiction once the appeal was withdrawn.
The matter reverts to the Registrar to carry out the sanctions outlined in the Notice of Proposal.
Salesperson registration refused due to past criminal convictions, unregistered trading, and failure to disclose.
The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.
The applicant had a history of criminal convictions for fraud and theft, had previously acted as an unregistered salesperson while impersonating his brother, and failed to disclose pending charges and a restitution order on his registration applications.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.
The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was ordered to refuse the registration.
Salesperson registration refused due to applicant's failure to disclose criminal convictions for marijuana grow operation.
The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.
The Registrar's refusal was based on the Applicant's failure to disclose prior criminal convictions for theft of electricity and production of a controlled substance related to a marijuana grow operation.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant provided false and misleading information on his application and subsequent correspondence.
The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.
The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.
Appeal of registration refusal dismissed; applicant failed to show material change in circumstances.
The Applicant's previous registration was revoked in 2003, and a subsequent application as a dealer was refused in 2010.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate new evidence or a material change in circumstances as required by section 12 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.
Salesperson registration refused due to recent drug conviction and ongoing conditional sentence.
The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.
The refusal was based on the applicant's recent conviction for producing marijuana, for which he was serving an 18-month conditional sentence.
The Tribunal found that the application was premature, as the applicant had not yet completed his period of probation and had not demonstrated a sustained period of unsupervised positive conduct.
Liquor licence for relocated university campus bar approved with conditions despite neighborhood objections regarding student drunkenness.
The applicant sought to relocate its campus bar, the Phoenix Bar & Grill, to a new central location at McMaster University.
Neighborhood residents objected to the liquor licence application, citing ongoing issues with intoxicated students, noise, and vandalism in the area.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the residents' concerns about general student drunkenness were valid, there was no evidence linking these issues specifically to the applicant's operations, which had a 43-year history without infractions.
The Tribunal approved the licence application but attached conditions regarding patio music, surveillance, and community contact to address the residents' concerns.
