COURT FILE NO.: 825/01
DATE: 20030117
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BLAIR R.S.J., CARNWATH AND J. MACDONALD JJ.
B E T W E E N:
GURNEK SINGH o/a SARWAN AUTO SALES
Appellant
- and -
REGISTRAR, MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS ACT
Respondent
Norman Epstein, for the Appellant
Andreas Michael Rothe, for the Respondent
HEARD: January 17, 2003
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
J. MACDONALD J.: (Orally)
[1] This appeal is from the decision of the License Appeal Tribunal on November 19th, 2001 to confirm the proposal made by the Registrar to revoke the appellant's registration as a motor vehicle dealer, pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.42. The tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposed revocation.
[2] The appellant has a right of appeal to this Court pursuant to s.11 of the License Appeal Tribunal Act, S.O., 1999, c. 12. There is no privative clause which applies to the tribunal's decisions. The tribunal exercised some expertise in determining licensing issues in this case.
[3] The grounds of appeal are that the hearing conducted by the tribunal was inadequate to the extent that the appellant was denied natural justice and secondly, that the tribunal erred in its determination of the facts and of the appropriate penalty. In argument, these grounds merged into the submission that the tribunal erred in disbelieving the appellant, based in part on documents, despite his sworn assertions, and also erred in finding that the Registrar had "reasonable grounds for his belief that Mr. Singh will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty", as required by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.
[4] The tribunal conducted a two-day hearing. The appellant was represented by counsel. Witnesses were called and either sworn or affirmed. They were cross-examined. The appellant was given the opportunity to present his case and he testified. Hearsay evidence was led, as s.15 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act permits. In our opinion, the hearing afforded to the appellant was entirely appropriate and there was no denial of natural justice. Section 15 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act modifies the concept of natural justice in the circumstances.
[5] There was ample evidence to support the tribunal's conclusion that the Registrar had reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant will not carry on business in accordance with the law or with integrity and honesty, as the Act requires. Consequently, there was ample evidence to support the penalty of revocation.
[6] The appellant has failed to demonstrate either error or unreasonableness in the tribunal's decision. The appeal is dismissed.
BLAIR R.S.J.
[7] I have endorsed the record as follows: "For oral reasons delivered by J. Macdonald J., the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to its costs of the appeal and of the October 28, 2002 attendance on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $4,000 plus disbursements, plus GST."
BLAIR R.S. J.
CARNWATH J.
J. MACDONALD J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 17, 2003
Date of Release: January 21, 2003
COURT FILE NO.: 825/01
DATE: 20030117
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BLAIR R.S.J., CARNWATH AND J. MACDONALD JJ.
B E T W E E N:
GURNEK SINGH o/a SARWAN AUTO SALES
Appellant
- and -
REGISTRAR, MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS ACT
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
J. MACDONALD J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 17, 2003
Date of Release: January 21, 2003