COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
T & R AUTO SERVICE CENTRE INC. and NASEEM JAMIL (Appellants/Moving Parties) v. THE DIRECTOR OF VEHICLE INSPECTION STANDARDS (Respondent/Respondent)
BEFORE:
O’CONNOR A.C.J.O.
COUNSEL:
Sebastian J. Winny for the appellants/moving parties
John Petrosoniak for the respondent
HEARD:
September 9, 2003
ENDORSEMENT
1The applicants move for a stay pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from an order of this court refusing leave to appeal a decision from the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which had dismissed the applicants’ appeal from the proposal of the Director to revoke the applicants’ motor vehicle inspection licences.
2The applicants have not satisfied me on either the first or third prong of the test set out in R.J.R. MacDonald Inc.
3An applicant for a stay must demonstrate that there is a serious question to be tried, in this case a serious question to be determined by the Supreme Court of Canada on the leave application. The applicants raise a number of issues relating to the fairness of the hearing before the Tribunal and the quality of the reasons of the Tribunal. It is noteworthy that all of those arguments were thoroughly reviewed and rejected by the Divisional Court in an appeal brought under s. 96(12) of the Highway Traffic Act. The Divisional Court recognized that the section conferred a broad power of review and concluded:
The Member’s Reason have been criticized but they contain the essential elements: a review of important evidence; findings of fact; and a conclusion rooted in the evidence.
4A panel of three judges of this court denied the applicant leave to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court.
5Although not conclusive, the two court decisions, adverse to the applicants, are factors to be weighed in assessing the seriousness of the issues raised. In addition, I am of the view that the issues raised by the applicants are such that it is very unlikely that the applicants’ motion for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada will succeed.
6As to the third prong in R.J.R. MacDonald, I note that the licencing regime in issue is directed at the protection of public safety. One tribunal and two courts have ruled against the applicants’ position. In my view, the balance of convenience, which in this case includes the public interest, weighs against granting the stay requested.
7The motion is, therefore, dismissed. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the respondent fixed in the amount of $1,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.
“Dennis O’Connor A.C.J.O.”