CITATION: Arulappu v. Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2011 ONSC 797
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 451/10
DATE: 20110202
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
FERRIER, POLOWIN AND HERMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
ANTON JEEVA ARULAPPU
Appellant
– and –
REGISTRAR, REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS BROKERS ACT, 2002
Respondent
Michael A. McKee, for the Appellant
George Phillip Drametu, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: February 2, 2011
FERRIER J. (orally)
[1] The appellant, Mr. Anton Jeeva Arulappu, brings this application for judicial review from a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) dated August 11, 2010.
[2] The Tribunal heard Mr. Arulappu’s appeal from a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar (the “Registrar”) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.30, Sch. C (the “Act”).
[3] The Notice of Proposal dated January 20, 2010 was issued pursuant to s.14(1)(b) of the Act to revoke the appellant’s registration as a broker on two grounds:
(i) That his past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty; and
(ii) That he made or provided a false statement in an application for registration or for renewal of registration.
[4] Following a hearing, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant’s registration.
Standard of Review
[5] Both parties agree, as do we, that the standard of review is reasonableness (see Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] S.C.J. No. 9 (S.C.C.)).
Analysis
[6] There can be no serious challenge to the two findings noted above. They were clearly within the range of a possible, reasonable outcome.
[7] However, we note the following. In its reasons, the Tribunal states the issues to be as follows:
(i) Whether or not 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; and
(ii) Whether or not the applicant’s registration should be revoked due to making false statements in his 2007 and 2008 applications for renewal of his registration.
[8] However, there was a third issue, namely, whether the application for renewal, despite the findings above could reasonably be granted subject to conditions. This issue was dealt with in submissions before the Tribunal and clearly was a live issue before the Tribunal. Nowhere in the reasons was this issue dealt with. This omission, with great respect, renders the decision below unreasonable.
[9] Thus, the decision and order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal differently constituted for a rehearing.
COSTS
[10] I have endorsed the Appeal Book as follows: “This appeal is allowed for the oral reasons delivered this day. Costs fixed at $1,000.”
FERRIER J.
POLOWIN J.
HERMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 2, 2011
Date of Release: February 7, 2011
CITATION: Arulappu v. Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2011 ONSC 797
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 451/10
DATE: 20110202
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
FERRIER, POLOWIN AND HERMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
ANTON JEEVA ARULAPPU
Appellant
– and –
REGISTRAR, REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS BROKERS ACT, 2002
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FERRIER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 2, 2011
Date of Release: February 7, 2011