Court File and Parties

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 508/01 DATE: 20030304

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

CUNNINGHAM A.C.J., KURISKO & MATLOW JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from a proposal of the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act to revoke registration

B E T W E E N:

REGISTRAR, MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS ACT Appellant

Ariva R. Harari, for the Appellant

• and -

TAGHI VAHID SHAHIDI O/A GTA AUTO Respondent

Taghi Vahid Shahidi, In person

HEARD: January 30, 2003

Reasons for Decision

BY THE COURT:

[1] This is an appeal by the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers from a decision of the Ontario Licence Appeal tribunal made July 24, 2001. In its decision, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to grant a registration with conditions to the respondent and it is from that decision that the Registrar now appeals to the Divisional Court.

[2] The issue before this court is whether the Tribunal applied the proper test in determining whether the proposal made by the Registrar ought to have been carried out.

[3] The test is clearly set out in Brenner v. Ontario (Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers and Salesmen) (1983) 19 C.R.A.T. 58 where Southey J. stated,

...whether the past conduct of the applicant affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty. Unless the Tribunal can find that it does not, the Tribunal should not order the Registrar to refrain from carrying out his proposal.

[4] In the present case, the Tribunal carefully considered the evidence relating to each of the transactions in issue, as well as the submissions of counsel for the Registrar and for the respondent herein.

[5] In its application of the law, the Tribunal properly considered the relevant sections of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, R.S.O. c.M.42, particularly the implications of s. 7(4). Indeed, in its decision, the Tribunal quoted from the decision of Southey J. in Brenner, supra, where he stated,

The effect of s. 7(4) is that the Tribunal should only have refused to direct the Registrar to carry out its proposal if it thought the Registrar was in error in concluding that the past conduct of the applicant afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with law and with honesty and integrity.

[6] Moreover, the Tribunal accurately identified the issue before it when in paragraph 28 it stated,

The issue for the Tribunal in light of the Brenner decision is whether (the) evidence is sufficient to form the basis of the... “reasonable grounds for belief that the Applicant will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity” ...called for in s. 5(1)(b).

[7] While this court might have arrived at a different decision than that of the Tribunal, it is not for us to put ourselves in the shoes of the Tribunal. As a reviewing Court, it is for us to determine whether the Tribunal identified and applied the proper test and whether it applied it correctly. We cannot interfere with the Tribunal’s exercise of its discretion unless we are persuaded that it was clearly wrong.

[8] In our view, the Tribunal applied the proper test and exercised its discretion appropriately in setting out the five conditions for the continuation of the respondent’s registration. The appeal is dismissed.

Cunningham A.C.J.

Kurisko J.

Matlow J.