COURT FILE NO.: 132/09
DATE: 20091026
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
aston, swinton and karakatsanis jj.
B E T W E E N:
KERAMUDIN FAKHRI c.o.b. as CROWN AUTO REPAIR AND USED CAR SALES
Appellant
- and -
REGISTRAR, MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS ACT
Respondent
Justin M. Jakubiak, for the Appellant
Christopher L. Ezrin, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: October 26, 2009
ASTON J.: (Orally)
[1] Keramudin Fahkri appeals from the decision and order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, released March 13, 2009, directing the Registrar to carry out its November 11, 2008 Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration of the Appellant as a motor vehicle dealer under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.42.
[2] The appellant, carrying on business as Crown Auto Repair and Used Car Sales is a registered motor vehicle dealer, originally registered in approximately July 1991.
[3] Between June 1994 and December 1996, and between December 1999 and March 2003 the appellant was licensed to operate an inspection station under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.8.
[4] By 2004, he gave up his motor vehicle inspection Station licence but has remained a licenced car dealer.
[5] Between February 1995 and January 2004, the appellant was convicted 13 times under the Highway Traffic Act as an operator of a Motor Vehicle Inspection Agency. These offences relate to issuing false statements on safety standard certificates and/or structural inspection certificates and failure to remit or retain required information.
[6] Between March 1988 and November 2006, the appellant was also convicted 15 times under the Highway Traffic Act in his personal capacity.
[7] The appellant did not disclose any of those convictions on his applications to the Registrar for renewals of dealership registration.
[8] The Registrar issued a notice of proposal to revoke the appellant’s registration pursuant to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.
[9] The question before the tribunal was whether the appellant’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with law, and with integrity and honesty. See s.5(1)(b) of the Act.
[10] The tribunal considered the evidence of convictions in the other similar business enterprise, the failure of the appellant to disclose those convictions and his record in the operation of his used car dealership. The tribunal determined that the past conduct of the appellant did afford reasonable grounds to believe that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity, and therefore, ordered the Registrar to carry out its proposal to revoke his licence.
[11] The standard of review in this appeal is reasonableness, except to the extent that the appellant raises issues of natural justice.
[12] There was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness because the tribunal included consideration of the appellant’s language and literacy skills. He had raised his language and literacy skills in defence and the tribunal was obliged to consider this evidence along with all the other evidence it accepted.
[13] The appellant is in effect asking the court to re-weigh the evidence. This is not our task. The tribunal considered the evidence that the appellant had conducted his used car dealership without complaint for 18 years. However, in the tribunal’s view, that evidence did not outweigh the evidence of past misconduct in operating the motor vehicle inspection station and his failure to disclose those offences or his personal Highway Traffic Act offences. The tribunal was also concerned about his lack of acceptance of responsibility and found he did not acknowledge that he had breached the requirements of the law; nor did he put forward a plan that would ensure future compliance given his language limitations. We see nothing unreasonable in the tribunal’s decision and there was ample evidence to support its findings.
[14] The appeal is therefore dismissed, with costs to the Respondent fixed at $2,000.00.
[15] I have endorsed the Record: “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons given. The appellant is to pay costs fixed at $2,000.00.”
ASTON J.
SWINTON J.
KARAKATSANIS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 26, 2009
Date of Release: November 20, 2009
COURT FILE NO.: 132/09
DATE: 20091026
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
aston, swinton and karakatsanis jj.
B E T W E E N:
KERAMUDIN FAKHRI c.o.b. as CROWN AUTO REPAIR AND USED CAR SALES
Appellant
- and -
REGISTRAR, MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS ACT
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ASTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 26, 2009
Date of Release: November 20, 2009