Licence Tribunal

Appeal d'appel en

Tribunal matière de permis

DATE:

2014-08-26

FILE:

8604/MVDA

CASE NAME:

8604 v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002

An Appeal from a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sch. B - to Revoke Registrations

SM Auto Rental Ltd. and Baldev-Raj Mehta

Appellants

-and-

Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Kenneth W. Koprowski, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellants:

Bernie Romano, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Brian Osler, Counsel

Heard in Toronto:

July 29, 2014

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

BACKGROUND

This is a hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) arising out of a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 (the “Registrar” and the “Act” respectively). The Notice of Proposal dated January 28, 2014, proposed to revoke the registration of SM Auto Rental Ltd. (“the corporate Appellant”) as a motor vehicle dealer and the registration of Baldev-Raj Mehta (“the Appellant”) as a motor vehicle salesperson (together referred to as “the Appellants”), under the Act.

SUMMARY

The Appellants were both registered under the Act on August 18, 2011, as a salesperson and motor vehicle dealer. As at the time of this hearing, there had never been a consumer complaint against either.

The Registrar issued its proposal based on two decisions of this Tribunal. One decision was in 2006, the other in 2013. The decisions did not involve either of the Appellants directly. The decisions were made against one BLB who applied to be registered as a salesperson under the Act. The Appellant and BLB were friends. Both applications were denied. The Registrar’s concerns, in the instant case, and the reasons for issuing the current Notice of Proposal, were, first, whether the Appellant made false statements in the applications of BLB to help him become registered under the Act. Secondly, the Registrar was concerned with the implications of the Tribunal decisions on the Appellants today.

Based on the two Tribunal decisions, the Registrar alleged that the past conduct of the Appellant, as an individual and in his capacity as an officer and director of the corporate Appellant, affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty, contrary to sections 6(1)(a)(ii) and 6(1)(d)(iii) of the Act.

Similarly, the Registrar alleged that the Appellant, as an individual and as an officer and director of the corporate Appellant, made a false statement or provided a false statement in an application for registration or for renewal of registration, contrary to sections 6(1)(a)(iii) and 6(1)(d)(iv) of the Act.

For their part, the position of the Appellants was that the decision of the Tribunal in 2006 involved only BLB and, therefore, is not relevant to the Appellants today, inasmuch as that decision did not involve the Appellants. It was the conduct of BLB that was in issue in that decision. For the instant hearing, the relevant document was the application of BLB dated March 5, 2012, which the Appellant signed personally and as a representative of the corporate Appellant.

The Appellant made changes to that document but argued that the changes were made as a result of an innocent misunderstanding. There was never any wilful intent to deceive.

The Appellants’ argue that their honesty and integrity and compliance with the law is manifested by the fact that, the Appellant is also registered as a mortgage broker and real estate agent, and has never been subject to any convictions or serious complaints in those capacities. The Appellants have never had any convictions or complaints while registered under the Act as a salesperson and motor vehicle dealer.

FACTS

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTRAR

Evidence of Mary Jane South

Since 1997, Ms. South has been the Deputy Registrar of the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (“OMVIC”), the agency delegated to oversee the Act. Among other things, she oversees consumer complaints against registrants and oversees the registration provisions under the Act. She reports to the Registrar.

The corporate Appellant was incorporated on December 23, 2010. It was previously incorporated under another corporate name on September 21, 2007. Ms. South confirmed that the Appellants were each registered under the Act on August 18, 2011. Attached to the registration of the corporate Appellant were Terms and Conditions, a copy of which is found at Tab 1A of Exhibit #3. The Appellant signed an acknowledgement of those terms as the officer of the corporate Appellant. Ms. South referred to paragraph 37 of the Terms and Conditions, found on page 9 of Tab 1A, that dealt with the consequences for misbehaviour of the corporate Appellant, referred to as “the Registrant.” That provision reads as follows:

37. The Registrant acknowledges that the Registrar may take further administrative action, including a proposal to revoke its registration, arising from any matters that have occurred or may occur related to honesty and integrity or financial position.

Ms. South also referred to various documents at Tab 3 in Exhibit #3 that named the Appellant as President, Secretary and Treasurer of the corporate Appellant. The Tribunal notes that the Appellant’s positions as Director and Officer of the corporate Appellant were never in issue at this hearing.

Since 2011, the corporate Appellant conducted 9 non-dealer retail transactions in the period August, 2011, to June, 2012. In the period June, 2012, to June, 2013, the corporate Appellant conducted 3 such transactions. In the period June, 2013, to June, 2014, it conducted no such transactions. In that entire period of time, there were no consumer complaints against either Appellant.

The Tribunal Decision of 2006

In the Tribunal decision of 2006 (found at Tab1C of Exhibit #3), the Appellant, who testified at that hearing, stated that he advised BLB how to answer some questions in BLB’s application for registration as a salesperson, dated May 24, 2005 (“the 2005 application”). Ms. South referred specifically to the summary of the testimony of the Appellant, who was referred to as “Witness #1” in the decision, found at page 7 of the decision and page 21 of Tab 1C of Exhibit #3, and where BLB was referred to as the Applicant. Part of that summary reads as follows:

…In cross-examination the witness [the Appellant in the instant case] confirmed that he is an Income Tax consultant and knows the Applicant [that is, BLB] as a friend. He has been a tax consultant for 30 years. He has no official accreditations but took some accounting courses. He confirmed that he was aware that the Applicant went through bankruptcy proceedings in 1994. After being asked to read question 6 of the application for registration, (whether the Applicant had been bankrupt and to which the Appellant advised the Applicant to answer “No”) the witness testified that he had helped the Applicant over the phone and that the Applicant hadn’t read him the whole question. It was his evidence that had he known the entire question he would have advised the Applicant differently. He made the same comments regarding question 9 relating to convictions under any law.

Specifically, the answer, “No”, was given to the question about BLB’s bankruptcy.

Similarly, the answer to the question about previous convictions was also given as “No.”

The Appellant explained at the 2006 hearing that he had given advice to BLB over the telephone when BLB called him to help him complete the application for registration. The Appellant further stated that, if BLB had read the entire question to him, and not just part of it, he would have advised BLB to answer “Yes” to the questions about bankruptcy proceedings and previous convictions.

Nevertheless, the Registrar took the position that the Appellant counselled BLB to answer the questions falsely, notwithstanding the Registrar’s belief that the Appellant knew, at the time of his application, that BLB had a previous conviction and had been involved in bankruptcy proceedings.

Those responses, according to Ms. South, “amplified” (to use her terminology) the Registrar’s concerns about the Appellant’s participation in the non-disclosure in BLB’s application in 2012. The 2013 Tribunal decision was a concern because the Appellant repeated the non-disclosure of: 1) BLB’s conviction for odometer tampering to which he entered a guilty plea in 2001; 2) his personal bankruptcy in November, 1994, and 3) his discharge in December, 1994.

The Tribunal Decision of 2013

The Tribunal decision of 2013 is found at Tab 1B of Exhibit #3. Ms. South was at that hearing. The hearing was an appeal from the Registrar’s refusal to grant registration to BLB as a salesperson for the corporate Appellant. The Appellant acted as the Agent for BLB at the hearing. The Registrar refused to grant the application, dated March 5, 2012, because of non-disclosure of information. The Tribunal upheld that refusal.

The non-disclosure related to the information that is set out in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the Tribunal decision, where BLB is described as the Applicant. Those paragraphs read as follows:

3The impugned answers on the Applicant’s application are found in Section E:

2. Have you ever had a commercial, professional or business registration certificate or licence of any kind refused, suspended, revoked or cancelled, or have you ever been a party to such proceedings?

3. Are there any unsatisfied judgments, court orders or collections currently pending against you?

4. Have you been involved in bankruptcy proceedings or had a petition filed against you under any banking or insolvency legislation in any jurisdiction in the last ten years?

5. Have you ever been found guilty or convicted of an offence under any law, or are any charges pending?

4The Applicant answered “No” to the above questions. With respect to questions 2 and 3, the answers were changed from “Yes” to “No” and the Applicant made several assertions about how the changes came about. Ms. Lotton’s testimony centred around her involvement in those changes. She also reviewed a security tape recording of her dealings with the Applicant and his agent, Baldev Mehta, taken at the time the Applicant submitted his application and made the disputed answers. In 2001, his registration was revoked and he was refused registration by the Tribunal in 2006. In January, 2011, the Applicant filed a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy Act and is currently bound by an order arising out of that proposal to pay $375.00/month for the benefit of his creditors. At least one of the grounds for the revocation of his registration in 2001 was his involvement in and conviction for odometer tampering.

5Ms. Lotton testified that when she reviewed the Applicant’s registration she paid particular attention to the questions and answers in Section E. It was her practice to advise applicants, in general, that if the answer to any of the questions was “Yes” then there might be a delay in registration as the Registrar would require further information. She then read question 2 to the Applicant and Mr. Mehta and asked them for the correct answer. Each stated “No” and this is heard clearly on the video footage. She then advised them that they had answered “Yes” and therefore they should change it and initial the changes. The procedure was repeated with respect to question 3. Her version of the events is supported by a review of the video footage.

It was the individual Appellant who attended with BLB at the OMVIC counter at the time that BLB submitted his application in 2012. The Appellant changed two answers to “No” at the counter (questions 2 and 3) and initialled the changes. Therefore, the Registrar considered the Appellant to be a party to the non-disclosure.

In paragraph 7 of the 2013 Tribunal decision, the Tribunal further recites that BLB testified that the Appellant was aware of his (that is, BLB’s) regulatory history, financial problems, including his 1994 bankruptcy and his 2011 consumer proposal and his conviction in 2001.

At paragraph 10 of the 2013 Tribunal decision, we read the following:

10On reviewing the application, on March 14, 2012, the Registrar wrote to the Applicant seeking clarification of the “No” answers in Section E…That letter advised the Applicant that those answers did not accord with the Registrar’s records. The Applicant and Mr. Mehta responded to the Registrar on the same day stating:

According to your letter dated March 14, 2012, some of the answers to the questions on the application Brij Badhan and Baldev Mehta came to the office to submit where (sic) changed by the receptionist (female) working at the front desk in the OMVIC office. The answers were changed from the YES option to the NO option. The same female initialed all the changes according to her recollection. Below are the correct answers…

The Tribunal notes that the letter referred to in the above paragraph was filed at Tab 31 of Exhibit #3 at this hearing.

In paragraph 11 of the 2013 Tribunal decision, the Applicant (BLB) admitted that he, and not the person at the counter, was the one who answered “No”, but that he had done so because it was a misunderstanding.

Finally, at paragraph 13 of the 2013 Tribunal decision, the Vice-Chair concluded that the Applicant (BLB) could not be reasonably expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of business. Also, there were grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. He was also found to have made false statements in his application for registration. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse his registration under the Act.

Consequently, in the case now before the Tribunal, the evidence of the Appellant’s conduct in the above case, both at the counter and through the letter, was the basis of the Registrar issuing the current Notice of Proposal.

Ms. South explained that the Appellants were not parties at the 2013 Tribunal hearing because the Registrar presumed that it was BLB who was responsible for the non-disclosure in his application. It was in the process of preparing for that hearing that Ms. South concluded that the Appellant was a party to the non-disclosure.

The changes that the Appellant made in BLB’s application were misleading and, therefore, troubling to the Registrar.

Furthermore, the Registrar pointed out that the Appellants used the same defence in their Notice of Appeal in this matter that was used and rejected at the previous Tribunal hearing in 2013.

Cross-examination of Ms. South

On cross-examination, dealing with the 2006 Tribunal decision, Counsel for the Appellants suggested to Ms. South that the Appellant had advised BLB to answer “No” to the question concerning BLB’s bankruptcy because BLB had already been discharged in 1994 and because BLB did not read the entire question to the Appellant over the telephone. That question, number 9, reads as follows (as quoted from page 2 of the 2006 Tribunal decision, found at page 16 of Tab 1C of Exhibit #3):

Are you engaged now or have you been involved in personal bankruptcy proceedings? If yes, attach a copy of the Assignment in Bankruptcy or proof of discharge, and provide an explanation of circumstances leading to bankruptcy.

Similarly, Counsel also suggested that the Appellant advised BLB to answer “No” to the question about previous convictions because BLB had not read the entire question to the Appellant. That question is also recited at page 2 of the 2006 Tribunal decision, found at page 16 of Tab 1C of Exhibit #3. It reads:

Have you ever been found guilty or convicted of an offence under any law or are any charges pending? (This includes those instances where a conditional or absolute discharge has been ordered). If yes, list all charges and/or convictions, and the circumstances surrounding each (attach additional sheets if necessary).

In response, Ms. South stated that the facts on which the Tribunal relied in the 2006 decision were that BLB had filed for personal bankruptcy in November, 1994, and was discharged in December, 1994. Further, BLB had pleaded guilty to odometer tampering in May, 2001.

Bringing this evidence forward to BLB’s application on March 5, 2012, that led to the Tribunal decision in 2013, Ms. South referred to question 1 in Section B of the 2012 application. That question reads as follows:

1. Have you ever had a registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act refused, revoked, suspended or cancelled?

To that question, with the Appellant assisting, the answer “Yes” was checked. The year “2001” was also inserted into the right margin.

That answer was correct as far as it went, but Ms. South pointed out that BLB also had his application refused in 2006 (the 2006 Tribunal decision) yet that refusal was not noted in question 1. That was not a full disclosure, therefore, according to her.

Then, questions 2 and 3 in Section E of that same application were those that were first answered “Yes” and then changed to “No.” Question 2 asks the following question:

2. Have you ever had a commercial, professional or business registration certificate or licence of any kind refused, suspended, revoked or cancelled, or have you ever been a party to such a proceeding?

Question 3 reads as follows:

3. Are there any unsatisfied judgments, court orders or collections currently pending against you?

Counsel for the Appellants suggested that, if the answer to question 1 in Section B was “Yes,” then the answer to question 2 in Section E had to be “Yes” as well, since they both asked whether any registration has been refused, revoked, suspended or cancelled. Ms. South responded that a “Yes” answer to question 1 in Section B does not automatically mean that the answer must also be “Yes” to question 2 in Section E. Counsel suggested that the different answers were illogical.

Concerning question 5 in Section E of the application, where the answer “No” was checked, Counsel for the Appellants suggested that it was the correct answer because the question dealt with bankruptcy in only the last 10 years. That question reads as follows:

5. Have you been involved in bankruptcy proceedings or had a petition filed against you under any bankruptcy or insolvency legislation in any jurisdiction in the last 10 years?

Counsel suggested that BLB had been discharged from bankruptcy in 1994, which was more than 10 years before the March 5, 2012, application was filed, so that “No” was the correct answer. Ms. South responded that BLB had to make payments under a consumer proposal made in January, 2011 (see reference to paragraph [4] in the 2013 Tribunal decision, referred to earlier) so that “Yes” would have been the proper answer. She also believed that an ordinary person would know that a consumer proposal would be included within that question.

Ms. South acknowledged that no findings of fact were made against the Appellant in the 2006 Tribunal decision. Such findings were made only as against BLB.

As for the 2013 Tribunal decision, Ms. South considered the contents of paragraphs 5, 7 and 10 of that decision (referred to earlier) to be findings of fact against the Appellant. Ms. South considered that those findings showed that the Appellant was intimately involved in inserting the misleading information into the March 5, 2012, application on behalf of BLB.

Ms. South acknowledged that there were no financial issues, no odometer tampering issues and no prior conviction issues relating to the Appellants. However, she stated that the most recent instance of the Appellant’s lack of honesty and integrity was the contents of his Notice of Appeal.

In that document, the Appellant repeats his explanation that the person at the OMVIC counter had changed the documents, yet that story had already been discredited at the 2013 Tribunal hearing.

When Counsel for the Appellants suggested that, if the Appellant wanted to be dishonest, he could have answered “No” instead of “Yes” to question 1 in Section B that asked whether any registration had been refused, revoked, suspended or cancelled, Ms. South could not explain why he did not answer “No.”

Evidence of Tanya Jennifer Lotton

Ms. Lotton, as at the time of this hearing, had worked at OMVIC for three years. Since October, 2012, she has been the senior registration officer who processes applications for motor vehicle dealers and conducts screening of individuals involved with a dealership.

Before October, 2012, she worked at the front counter of OMVIC, reviewing applications.

She had testified at the Tribunal hearing in 2013. She confirmed that, at the counter, in March, 2012, the Appellant made the changes in BLB’s application and had initialled those changes.

On cross-examination, Ms. Lotton confirmed that the Appellant had made the changes to BLB’s application in front of her, making no attempt to hide the changes.

She stated that she paid close attention to Section “E” of the application, headed “Eligibility.” In that Section are found questions 2 and 3 that had been answered “Yes” at first and then changed to “No” at the counter.

She would advise an applicant that a “Yes” answer might require further documentation.

She stated that the answer to question 1 in Section B (whether a registration had been refused, revoked, suspended or cancelled) was “Yes” and the year “2001” was printed at the end of the question. She also stated that she did not notice that answer. She was concerned with ensuring that all the boxes were filled in. If she had seen the “Yes” answer to question 1 in Section B, it would have affected her response to question 2 in Section E (that also dealt with any past refusal, suspension, revocation or cancellation) but which the Appellant had changed to “No.” She acknowledged that the answer, “No” to question 2 in Section E is inconsistent with the answer “Yes” in question 1 in Section B. The answer to question 2 in Section E should have been “Yes” in order to be consistent with the “Yes” answer in question 1 of Section B.

She also confirmed that questions 1 and 2 in Section E were first answered, “Yes,” but then changed to “No.” When questioned as to whether she asked the Appellant and BLB why the change was made, she stated that she repeated the question and repeated that further documentation might be needed.

Counsel for the Appellants asked Ms. Lotton if she asked the Appellant and BLB whether they understood question 3 in Section E (whether there were any unsatisfied judgments, court orders or collections). She stated that she read the question to them and then they changed the answer from “Yes” to “No.”

She also stated that she did not know whether the Appellant’s first language was English and acknowledged that the Appellant may have had difficulty in understanding her, but he appeared to understand.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

Evidence of Baldev-Raj Mehta

Mr. Mehta was the only witness to testify on behalf of the Appellants.

He stated that he was born in 1945 in India. He came to Canada in 1972. He was a land conveyancer for 20 to 25 years until about 7 or 8 years before this hearing. About 24 years ago, he was registered as a real estate agent in Ontario. He was registered as a real estate broker and mortgage broker approximately 7 years ago. While so registered, he has not been convicted of any offences: his licences have never been suspended; and there were no outstanding judgments against him.

He incorporated a company under the name Allfinance Mortgage Services Ltd. in 2007. He changed the name to SM Auto Rental Ltd. in 2010, when he needed a corporation in order to become registered as a motor vehicle dealer. He became a dealer in 2011.

He identified BLB as a friend whom he had known since 1972, which, the Tribunal notes, is the year in which Mr. Mehta came to Canada. He was aware of the proceedings against BLB because he testified on his behalf. Presumably, this was a reference to the Tribunal hearing in 2006, where Mr. Mehta testified, whereas he appeared as Agent for BLB in the 2013 Tribunal hearing and did not testify at that time.

Mr. Mehta admitted to completing the salesperson registration application dated March 5, 2012 for BLB found at Tab 29 of Exhibit #3. That is the document that gave rise to the Tribunal hearing in 2013 after the Registrar issued its proposal to refuse BLB’s registration.

To question 1 in Section B (“Have you ever had a registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act refused, revoked, suspended or cancelled?”), Mr. Mehta checked the box marked “Yes” and inserted the date 2001. He stated that he was not aware that BLB’s application had been refused in 2006. That refusal, the Tribunal notes, occurred after the Tribunal hearing in 2006 in which Mr. Mehta testified.

For question 2 in Section E of the application (“Have you ever had a commercial, professional or business registration certificate or licence of any kind refused, suspended, revoked or cancelled, or have you ever been a party to such a proceeding?”) Mr. Mehta first answered “Yes” but then changed it to “No” after, so he testified, the person at the counter told him to change it. For the same reason, he stated that he changed the answer to question 3 from “Yes” to “No.” (“Are there any unsatisfied judgements, court orders or collections currently pending against you?”). He stated that he answered “Yes” to question 3 because of BLB’s conviction for odometer tampering. For changing those answers, he suggested that, perhaps, there was a language barrier and he did not understand the person at the counter and that, possibly, he misunderstood her.

Although he said that he knew of BLB’s conviction for odometer tampering, he answered “No” to question 6 (“Have you ever been found guilty or convicted of an offence under any law or are there any charges pending?”).

He stated that it was not his intention to lie or mislead anyone in completing that application.

As for the letter dated March 14, 2012, at Tab 31, Exhibit #3 (the response to OMVIC’s request for further information), Mr. Mehta admitted that he signed it. He also stated that it was BLB who typed it. Mr. Mehta signed it, but he did not read the first paragraph (quoted earlier). He stated that he only read the corrections stated in the letter.

Cross-examination of Mr. Mehta

On cross-examination, Mr. Mehta acknowledged that he knew BLB for more than 40 years. They would meet occasionally such as at birthday parties.

Concerning the answers to questions 2, 3, 5 and 6 in Section E of the 2012 application, he acknowledged that he now knows the correct answers, he knew that the licence of BLB had been suspended and knew that BLB had declared bankruptcy in 1994. It was because the bankruptcy occurred in 1994 that he told BLB, over the telephone, to answer “No” to the question about any past bankruptcies. Mr. Mehta stated that, at that time, since the bankruptcy and discharge occurred more than 10 years before, he told BLB to answer “No”.

The Tribunal notes that in the 2006 Tribunal hearing, there was no mention in the application question about bankruptcy having occurred within the last ten years. The question is cited in full at page 2 of the Decision, found at page 16 of Tab 1C of Exhibit #3. The question is set out in full as follows:

Are you engaged now or have you been involved in personal bankruptcy proceedings? If yes, attach a copy of the Assignment in Bankruptcy or proof of discharge, and provide an explanation of circumstances leading to bankruptcy.

Contrast that question with question 5 in the 2012 application which reads:

Have you been involved in bankruptcy proceedings or had a petition filed against you under any bankruptcy or insolvency legislation in any jurisdiction in the last 10 years?

Mr. Mehta further stated that, although BLB asked him on the telephone about the bankruptcy question in the 2005 application, he could not remember whether BLB asked him about prior convictions.

Mr. Mehta stated several times that it was a language barrier that caused him to change the answers to questions 2 and 3 in the 2012 application form. Counsel for the Registrar pointed out that, in his Notice of Appeal, Mr. Mehta again placed the blame on the person at the OMVIC counter for changing his answers to questions 2 and 3 in Section E. He repeated that explanation in the letter of March 14, 2012 (Tab 31, Exhibit #3). Counsel pointed out that Mr. Mehta did not raise the issue of a language barrier in the Notice of Appeal or the letter. Mr. Mehta brought up the language barrier issue only at this hearing.

Counsel for the Registrar also pointed out to Mr. Mehta that the summary of his testimony at the 2006 Tribunal hearing (page 7 of the decision, page 21 of Tab 1C of Exhibit #3) revealed that he stated that, had he been told the full question concerning BLB’s past convictions, he would have told him to answer “Yes.” Yet, in the 2012 application, when Mr. Mehta saw the question in full, he still answered “No” to the question about BLB’s past convictions. In response, and contrary to the summary in the decision, Mr. Mehta stated that, for the 2005 application, BLB asked him only about bankruptcy and did not think that he asked Mr. Mehta about convictions.

Mr. Mehta also denied that BLB had told him about his consumer proposal, despite the summary of BLB’s testimony (paragraph 7 of the 2013 Tribunal decision) where he is reported to have said that Mr. Mehta did know about the consumer proposal.

SUBMISSIONS

The Registrar’s Submissions

Counsel for the Registrar submitted that making a false statement under sections 6(1)(a)(iii) and section 6(1)(d)(iv) does not have to relate to a person’s own application for registration. The sections refer to false statements made in “an application for registration.” In this case, Mr. Mehta completed the 2012 application for BLB and included false information. He also assisted BLB in answering some questions falsely over the telephone in BLB’s 2005 application.

Counsel further argued that Mr. Mehta had a history of dishonesty in completing applications. In 2006, at the Tribunal hearing, Mr. Mehta stated that he advised BLB in answering questions on BLB’s 2005 application. He advised him to answer “No” with regard to the question about BLB’s past convictions (failing to disclose the odometer tampering conviction). He advised him to answer “No” to the question about a previous bankruptcy. Both answers were false. Mr. Mehta stated that BLB had not read the entire questions to him. If he had, then Mr. Mehta would have advised him to give a different answer. Yet, in the 2012 application, where Mr. Mehta had the benefit of full question about convictions in front of him, he still gave a “No” answer.

Further, by the letter of March 14, 2012, Mr. Mehta and BLB both signed it and claimed that the person at the OMVIC counter changed the answers. That version had been discredited at the 2013 Tribunal hearing, yet Mr. Mehta persisted in advancing that explanation in the case now before this Tribunal.

Mr. Mehta said that BLB had prepared the letter and he (Mr. Mehta) simply signed it without reading it. In contrast to that, at this hearing, Mr. Mehta put forward the explanation that there was a misunderstanding at the OMVIC counter and that there was a language barrier because English was not his first language. Nevertheless, in his Notice of Appeal, Mr. Mehta still put forward the earlier explanation. He raised the misunderstanding and language barrier explanations only at this hearing.

In the 2012 application form, the failure to disclose the conviction against BLB for odometer tampering was serious, especially since the same answer was given in the 2005 application.

Further, in the 2012 application, BLB’s consumer proposal was not disclosed, even though BLB, in his testimony in the 2013 Tribunal hearing, stated that Mr. Mehta knew about it.

Counsel referred the Tribunal to two decisions of this Tribunal in support of his submissions. One was the Tarek Osman case [2011] O.L.A.T.D. No. 194, released July 29, 2011. The other was the decision involving Thi Van Nguyen, 2013 CanLII 69341 (ON LAT), released October 29, 2013.

In the Osman case, the Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the Applicant’s application for registration as a salesperson. In his application, Mr. Osman answered “No” to question 1 of Section B (whether a registration had ever been refused, revoked, suspended or cancelled). The wording was the same as the wording in question 1 in Section B of the 2012 application of BLB. Mr. Osman also answered “No” to question 2 in section E (whether a commercial, professional or business registration certificate or licence of any kind had ever been refused, suspended, revoked or cancelled). That wording, as well, was the same wording as in that question in BLB’s 2012 application.

Both answers proved to be false in that he had a registration as a salesperson refused earlier.

When asked if he had any convictions, Mr. Osman answered “No” orally to an OMVIC representative. That, too, proved to be false. He had several convictions. He also gave false information as to why his employment with his employer had been terminated. He also falsely claimed that he never experienced a dissatisfied customer. The evidence at the hearing proved otherwise.

Considering the false information given, the Member, in directing the Registrar to carry out the Proposal, stated, at paragraphs 28 and 29:

28. Whether or not the Applicant provided full and correct information to the Registrar is a crucial matter in assessing the honesty of an applicant, as this information is clearly intended to be relied upon by the Registrar. If any information is intentionally concealed, or if false information is given, the Registrar has good reason to have serious concerns that the applicant will withhold information or provide false information in the future in his dealings with the Registrar or with others and thus, perhaps, with members of the public.

29. A motor vehicle salesperson deals with members of the public who are purchasing or selling products of substantial value, and who depend upon the salesperson not to misrepresent the value or quality of the vehicles. By withholding or falsifying information, motor vehicle salespersons are in a position to take advantage of a vulnerable consumer and the public.

(Emphasis is added)

At paragraph 30, the Member concludes:

…These instances of concealment are serious and point to the potential for further deception by the Applicant.

Counsel for the Registrar submitted that the Osman case is important when considering the letter of March 14, 2012, for it, too, makes a false statement. It blames the OMVIC person at the counter for making the changes. Mr. Mehta proffers that same explanation again in the Notice of Appeal, dated February 10, 2014, notwithstanding the fact that such an explanation was discredited at the 2013 Tribunal hearing.

In the Van Nguyen case, the facts, as summarized by the Member, were as follows:

The Applicant submitted two applications for registration as a salesperson, both of which were signed on November 26, 2012, to the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (“OMVIC”), the organization with delegated authority for administration of the Act. On the application received by the Registrar on December 4, 2012 (Exhibit 3, Tab 3), the Applicant indicated ‘no’ to question number 8 which asks if the applicant has ever been found guilty or convicted of an offence under any law. On the application received on December 13, 2012, the Applicant also indicated ‘no’ to question 8. A Police Criminal Records Check (Exhibit 3, Tab 9) and Court records (Exhibit 3, Tab 16) indicate that on March 4, 2011, the Applicant was convicted of theft of electricity and of production of a controlled substance.

In directing the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration, the Member states, at page 8 of the decision:

Both the failure to provide full disclosure and the provision of false information reflect an Applicant’s honesty and integrity. The regulatory regime set out in the Act is largely based on disclosure. A consumer’s right to full information in order to make an informed decision is set out in requirements regulating, for example, vehicle history and advertising disclosure.

The Tribunal finds that the Applicant provided false and misleading information to the Registrar in his application for registration in accordance with section 6(1)(a)(iii) of the Act. Further, in accordance with section 6(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, the Tribunal finds that this conduct of the Applicant provides reason to believe that the Applicant will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

Counsel submitted that Mr. Mehta has failed the test of honesty and integrity, as referred to in the Van Nguyen case, in that he not only gave false answers but also gave false explanations for giving those answers.

The Appellants’ Submissions

Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the 2013 Tribunal decision dealt with BLB and not with Mr. Mehta or his corporation. The decision made no findings against Mr. Mehta despite the reluctance of Ms. South to acknowledge same.

He further submitted that Ms. Lotton did not tell BLB and Mr. Mehta that there would be a delay in BLB’s application if their answers were “Yes” to questions 2 and 3 in Section E. Her only testimony was as to her general practice.

Further, there was no problem with Mr. Mehta’s own application for registration, found at Tab 5 of Exhibit #3. Despite the fact that the OMVIC date stamp on the application indicates that it was received January 4, 2010, the application itself is dated January 4, 2011. The Tribunal accepts that the application was actually submitted in January, 2011, and not in 2010.

He further submitted that the Registrar must show an intention or wilful deceit on the part of Mr. Mehta in order to succeed. Here, there was no such intention to deceive. If Mr. Mehta intended to deceive, he would not have answered “Yes” to question 1 in Section B concerning any application in the past that had been refused, revoked, suspended or cancelled. He would have answered “No.” Secondly, if he intended to deceive, all the answers would have been favourable to the applicant. Thirdly, if he intended to deceive, he would not have made the changes to questions 2 and 3 in Section E in front of Ms. Lotton. He and BLB could have walked out and then returned later with the amended answers. He understood Ms. Lotton to say that he had to change the answers to “No.”

As for the letter of March 14, 2012, Mr. Mehta did not prepare it. Although the first paragraph is incorrect, Mr. Mehta stated that he concentrated only on the corrected answers.

As for question 5 in Section E (“Have you been involved in bankruptcy proceedings or had a petition filed against you under any bankruptcy or insolvency legislation in any jurisdiction in the last 10 years?”), Mr. Mehta answered “No” because BLB was discharged from bankruptcy in 1994, over 10 years previously. Also, he did not know of BLB’s consumer proposal, despite BLB’s testimony to the contrary in the 2013 Tribunal decision. Since BLB’s testimony was given in May, 2013, there is no evidence that, in March, 2012, when Mr. Mehta completed the application, he knew of the consumer proposal at that time. It is also not clear on the application form that a consumer proposal requires a “Yes” answer to question 5.

As for question 6 in Section E (about previous convictions), Mr. Mehta focused on whether there were “charges pending,” and there were none.

As for Mr. Mehta’s honesty and integrity and compliance with the law [Section 6(1)(a)(ii)], his past conduct as a real estate agent, real estate broker and mortgage broker, with no consumer complaints against him, should be taken into account.

As for making false statements [Section 6(1)(a)(iii)], there is no evidence of intent to deceive.

As for the Osman and Van Nguyen cases relied on by the Registrar, Counsel for the Appellants submitted that those cases dealt with more serious false and non-disclosure issues and had more aggravating factors. There was no correcting letter in those cases as there was in the instant case.

Counsel referred the Tribunal to several cases in support of his submissions.

The proper test in a case such as this was set out in Brenner v. Ontario (Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers and Salesmen) [1983] O.J. No. 1017 (Divisional Court), at paragraph 12, where Southey J. states:

12. The proper question at the rehearing remains, however, 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.

This principle was confirmed in Ontario (Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act) v. Shine Car Sales 2003 CanLII 11437 (ON SCDC), [2003] O.J. No. 603, at paragraph 9. The Shine case also held that the Tribunal owes no deference to the Registrar’s opinion. Interestingly, at paragraph 12 of the judgment, dealing with the issue of odometer tampering, the Court states as follows:

12. It [the Tribunal] dealt with the two odometer tampering offences. These were troubling and they trouble us. But it was open to the Tribunal to regard these matters as not determinative in the circumstances of the issue of registrability. We cannot say, in all of the circumstances of this case that the Tribunal was wrong to do so. Overall, there is evidence in this record to support each finding of the Tribunal and we ought not therefore to interfere with those findings.

In the Tribunal decision, Re: Skaf [2005] O.L.A.T.D. No. 51, the applicant for registration as a salesperson failed to fully answer the question about past convictions. The facts in that case are set out in paragraph 2 of the decision, as follows:

2. It is the position of the Respondent that the past conduct of the Applicant is inconsistent with the intention and objective of the Act for the following reasons:

3. The Applicant failed to fully answer Question 9 on his Application for Registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act - Individual Application dated July 26, 2004. Question 9 asks: "Have you ever been found guilty or convicted of an offence under any law or are any charges pending? (This includes those instances where a conditional or absolute discharge has been ordered). If yes, list all charges and/or convictions, and the circumstances surrounding each (attach additional sheets if necessary)."

4. The Applicant answered "Yes", indicating:

"Assault in 2000 (given 1 year probation)" and describing one conviction in Youth Court.

3. That upon conducting a criminal record search it was found that the Applicant had 11 convictions between February 1997 and September 2002. Three convictions were before the Youth Court. The remaining convictions were described as:

(a) Possession of Proceeds of Crime (February 28, 2000);

(b) Carrying Concealed Weapon (February 28, 2000);

(c) Possession of Property Obtained by Crimes Over $5000.00 (February 28, 2000);

(d) Traffic in Scheduled Substance (February 28, 2000);

(e) Possession of a Scheduled II Substance (September 7, 2000);

(f) Assault (November 7, 2001);

(g) Assault (September 27, 2002);

(h) Fail to Comply with Recognizance (September 27, 2002).

3. As a result of the Applicant's failure to fully answer Question 9 and his past conduct as described by the criminal record search, registration of the Applicant is inconsistent with the intention and objective of the Act and therefore the Applicant should not be granted registration under the Act.

At paragraph 12 of the decision, the panel states:

12. The facts found proven by the Tribunal are as follows:

13. The Applicant is a young man of 24 years old, who acknowledges his past mistakes and who seems to be sincere in his desire to be an honest citizen. Further, the Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant has experienced considerable difficulties in his life.

14. The Applicant has a criminal record. There is no evidence that these convictions were industry-related.

15. The Applicant failed to fully disclose his criminal record; however, part of his failure to do so was based on a misperception that he did not have to disclose his Youth criminal records and that the disclosure of important convictions were appropriate. The Tribunal finds that, on a balance of probabilities, there is insufficient evidence of intention to deceive the Registrar.

(Emphasis is added)

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out his Proposal to refuse the registration of the Applicant. Intention of the Applicant was a factor. At paragraph 13, the Tribunal states as follows:

1. The Act provides that the Registrar may refuse the registration of an applicant where the applicant's past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not carry on business a) in accordance with financial responsibility or b) in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

2. Whether or not the Applicant provided correct information to the Registrar is a crucial matter in assessing the honesty of an applicant, as this information is clearly intended to be relied upon by the Registrar. If any information is intentionally concealed, or if false information is given, the Registrar has good reason to have serious concerns that the Applicant will withhold information or provide false information in the future in his dealings with the Registrar or with others and thus, perhaps, with members of the public…

3. As stated above, the Tribunal finds that there is insufficient evidence of deliberate intentions to deceive on the part of the Applicant in the filling of his application.

(Emphasis is added)

Nevertheless, the Tribunal imposed the following conditions:

14. Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in it under Section 7(4) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, the Licence Appeal Tribunal directs the Registrar not to carry out his Proposal to refuse the registration of Rabia Youssef Skaf as a salesperson. The Registrar is to register Rabia Youssek (sic) Skaf as a salesperson, subject to Skaf complying with the following terms and conditions:

15. Skaf is to ensure that all documents which he files with the Registrar are correct in all details. Further, Skaf is to ensure to provide full and complete disclosure on all future applications for registration, renewal or reinstatement as a motor vehicle salesperson and in all of his discussions with the Registrar, regardless of whether disclosure has been previously provided to the Registrar.

16. Skaf is to ensure that he will not provide any false or misleading information, verbally or in writing, to a representative of the Registrar.

17. If Skaf is charged in the future, under any law, he shall forthwith notify the Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, in writing, of the charges laid against him.

18. If Skaf is charged in the future, under any law, he shall forthwith notify his employer in writing and to give the Registrar a copy of this written notification signed by his employer.

19. Should Skaf breach any of the terms and conditions set out herein, in whole or in part, the Registrar may revoke the Applicant's registration.

Counsel for the Appellants urged the Tribunal to find that there was no intention on the part of the Appellant to deceive so that the Registrar should be directed not to carry out his proposal. In addition, Counsel urged the Tribunal to consider imposing conditions on the Appellants’ registrations, as was done in the Skaf case.

In reply, Counsel for the Registrar submitted that the Skaf case can be distinguished from the case before this Tribunal. In Skaf, the Applicant did not know he had to disclose his Youth Record, whereas, in the current case, Mr. Mehta could not explain why he failed to disclose BLB’s prior conviction.

Further, answering “Yes” to question 1 in Section B of the 2012 application and then answering “No” to question 2 in Section E shows an intention to deceive. The answers in questions 2, 5 and 6 in Section E were false, but Mr. Mehta could not explain why he answered as he did.

Therefore, Counsel for the Registrar argued that Skaf does not apply to the facts of the instant case.

THE LAW

The Act states in part as follows:

Prohibition

4. (1) No person shall,

(a) act as a motor vehicle dealer unless the person is registered as a motor vehicle dealer under this Act; or

(b) act as a salesperson unless he or she is registered as a salesperson.

Regarding the right to registration, the Act states:

Registration

6. (1) An applicant that meets the prescribed requirements is entitled to registration or renewal of registration by the registrar unless,

(a) the applicant is not a corporation and,

(i) having regard to the applicant’s financial position or the financial position of an interested person in respect of the applicant, the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of business,

(ii) the past conduct of the applicant or of an interested person in respect of the applicant affords reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty, or

(iii) the applicant or an employee or agent of the applicant makes a false statement or provides a false statement in an application for registration or for renewal of registration;

(b),(c) REPEALED: 2004, c. 19, s. 16 (5).

(d) the applicant is a corporation and,

(i) having regard to its financial position or the financial position of an interested person in respect of the corporation, the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of its business,

(ii) having regard to the financial position of its officers or directors or an interested person in respect of its officers or directors, the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of its business,

(iii) the past conduct of its officers or directors or of an interested person in respect of its officers or directors or of an interested person in respect of the corporation affords reasonable grounds for belief that its business will not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, or

(iv) an officer or director of the corporation makes a false statement or provides a false statement in an application for registration or for renewal of registration;

Refusal to register, etc.

8. (1) Subject to section 9, the registrar may refuse to register an applicant or may suspend or revoke a registration or refuse to renew a registration if, in his or her opinion, the applicant or registrant is not entitled to registration under section 6.

Conditions

(2) Subject to section 9, the registrar may,

(a) approve the registration or renewal of a registration on such conditions as he or she considers appropriate; and

(b) at any time apply to a registration such conditions as he or she considers appropriate.

Notice re: refusal, suspension, etc.

9. (1) The registrar shall notify an applicant or registrant in writing if he or she proposes to,

(a) refuse under subsection 8 (1) to grant or renew a registration;

(b) suspend or revoke a registration; or

(c) apply conditions to a registration or renewal to which the applicant or registrant has not consented.

Content of notice

(2) The notice of proposal shall set out the reasons for the proposed action and shall state that the applicant or registrant is entitled to a hearing by the Tribunal if the applicant or registrant mails or delivers, within 15 days after service of the notice, a written request for a hearing to the registrar and to the Tribunal.

(5) If a hearing is requested, the Tribunal shall hold the hearing and may by order direct the registrar to carry out the registrar’s proposal or substitute its opinion for that of the registrar and the Tribunal may attach conditions to its order or to a registration.

APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

Applicability of the Act

The Tribunal agrees with Counsel for the Registrar that providing a false statement does not have to relate to a person’s own application. Sections 6(1)(a)(iii) and 6(1)(d)(iv) refer to making such statements “in an application” as in this case, where Mr. Mehta assisted BLB in completing his application for registration. Counsel for the Appellants offered no contrary arguments.

Information about prior convictions

The Registrar relies on the evidence provided at the previous Tribunal hearings that Mr. Mehta assisted BLB on the telephone in completing his 2005 application. He advised BLB to answer “No” to the question relating to prior convictions. He said he would have answered differently if BLB had read him the entire question. Then, in the 2012 application, Mr. Mehta again answered “No” to that question despite having the full question in front of him.

In response, Mr. Mehta, having affirmed to tell the truth at this hearing, stated that he did not recall that BLB asked him about that question over the telephone. Mr. Mehta recalled BLB asking him only about the question relating to bankruptcy. At this hearing, the Tribunal did not have the benefit of hearing testimony from BLB under oath or by affirmation to clarify or solidify the evidence on whether he asked Mr. Mehta on the telephone about prior convictions. Mr. Mehta’s evidence at this hearing is, in effect, uncontradicted.

As for having read the entire question about prior convictions in the 2012 application, Mr. Mehta still answered “No.” His explanation was that he was focused on the words “charges pending” in the question. BLB had entered a guilty plea to odometer tampering in 2001, according to the evidence of Ms. South. In 2012, eleven years later, Mr. Mehta’s explanation for answering “No” is plausible and reasonable under the circumstances.

Information about Bankruptcy

As for the question relating to bankruptcy, Mr. Mehta advised BLB over the telephone to answer “No” in the 2005 application but said that he would have advised differently if BLB had read to him the entire question. Then, in the 2012 application, Mr. Mehta still answered “No” to the question about bankruptcy.

Mr. Mehta explained that the question in the 2012 application asked about bankruptcy proceedings in the last 10 years. BLB’s bankruptcy and discharge were both in 1994, which was more than 10 years earlier. The Tribunal notes that the question relating to bankruptcy in the 2005 application was worded differently than the wording in the 2012 application. The question relating to bankruptcy in the 2005 application was worded as follows, as recited in the Tribunal decision of 2006:

Are you engaged now or have you been involved in personal bankruptcy proceedings? If yes, attach a copy of the Assignment in Bankruptcy or proof of discharge, and provide an explanation of circumstances leading to bankruptcy.

The question relating to bankruptcy in the 2012 application reads differently:

Have you been involved in bankruptcy proceedings or had a petition filed against you under any bankruptcy or insolvency legislation in any jurisdiction in the last 10 years?

To answer “No” in light of the above wording was reasonable, given that BLB’s bankruptcy and discharge occurred in 1994. The Tribunal considers that, in the circumstances of this case, the addition of the 10 year period requirement added an additional factor to which Mr. Mehta had to address his mind.

Ms. South testified that the words “bankruptcy proceedings” should include BLB’s consumer proposal in 2011. There was no evidence presented to the Tribunal to substantiate that assertion. Nevertheless, without deciding the issue, there was also the evidence from Mr. Mehta that he did not know of BLB’s consumer proposal at the time he completed the 2012 application. It is true that, at the hearing before the Tribunal in May, 2013, it is reported in the decision that BLB stated during that hearing that Mr. Mehta knew of the consumer proposal. But, the hearing was in May, 2013. There is no record in the decision as to when BLB made Mr. Mehta aware of the consumer proposal. The 2012 application was completed in March, 2012. There was no evidence presented to this Tribunal as to whether, in March, 2012, Mr. Mehta knew of BLB’s consumer proposal. There is no evidence before this Tribunal to contradict Mr. Mehta’s evidence that he did not know of the consumer proposal at the time he completed the 2012 application. Again, BLB was not present to clarify the matter. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Mehta’s testimony on that matter.

Necessity of Intent to Deceive

The Tribunal agrees with Counsel for the Appellants, relying on the cases cited, that there must be evidence of intention to deceive or wilful deceit about the truth of the information in the 2012 application.

Upon considering the evidence and the sequence of events at the time the 2012 application was submitted, the Tribunal notes that Mr. Mehta made the corrections to questions 2 and 3 in Section E as he was standing in front of Ms. Lotton, the OMVIC representative, at her counter. He did not withdraw and return later with the changed answers.

The Tribunal considers that making the changes at the counter, in plain view of Ms. Lotton, is not the action of someone who is attempting to deceive, hide, manipulate or intentionally falsify a document surreptitiously.

As well, there is only speculation by the Registrar, but no concrete evidence, that Mr. Mehta changed the answers in questions 2 and 3 from “Yes” to “No” only because Ms. Lotton told him and BLB that a “Yes” answer might result in a further delay of registration.

There is also the evidence of Mr. Mehta that he changed the answers because of a language barrier and a misunderstanding. Counsel for the Registrar argued that such an explanation was given only at this hearing and not raised previously. The Tribunal notes that, when one examines Mr. Mehta’s Notice of Appeal and the reasons he gives for the appeal, it can be easily seen that he does not have a mastery of the English language. That is not a criticism. It is an observation relevant to this decision. Mr. Mehta’s Counsel who appeared with him at this hearing did not prepare the Notice of Appeal. Mr. Mehta did. Even during this hearing, the Tribunal had some difficulty understanding Mr. Mehta and asked him to repeat some answers. He was not represented by Counsel until immediately before this hearing. The Tribunal sees nothing sinister in Mr. Mehta raising the language barrier only at this hearing. The Tribunal also notes that, during Ms. Lotton’s testimony at this hearing, she acknowledged that Mr. Mehta may have had difficulty in understanding her.

In addition, Mr. Mehta answered question 1 in Section B accurately (“Have you ever had a registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act refused, revoked, suspended or cancelled?”). If he wanted to deceive OMVIC, he could have answered “No,” thereby eliminating the need to give an explanation, but he did not. Providing a truthful answer to that question is not indicative of an intent to deceive. He also inserted the year “2001” because BLB’s registration was revoked in that year. Inserting that date is also indicative of an attempt to provide complete information.

Letter of March 14, 2012

As for the letter of March 14, 2012, Counsel for the Registrar submitted that Mr. Mehta attempted to use the same argument in it that was discredited at the 2013 Tribunal hearing; that is, that the person at the OMVIC counter made the changes or caused them to be made.

In response, Mr. Mehta stated that he did not prepare the letter. He stated that BLB prepared it. He further said that he did not read the impugned first paragraph, in which blame was placed on Ms. Lotton. Instead, Mr. Mehta’s focus was on the corrected answers in the body of the letter. On this evidence, he was not discredited on cross-examination nor was any contrary evidence presented to the Tribunal that contradicted his version of events. The Tribunal can see no reason to disbelieve him.

Mr. Mehta’s own Application

Counsel for the Appellants submitted that, in Mr. Mehta’s own application for registration as a salesperson under the Act (Tab 5, Exhibit #3) there was no false or misleading information contained in it. The Registrar did not issue a Notice of Proposal to refuse registration.

Although Mr. Mehta’s application was not the subject of this appeal, its truthful contents tend to militate against the Registrar’s allegation, made in his Counsel’s submissions, that Mr. Mehta has a history of dishonesty in completing applications.

Past Conduct

Concerning the Appellants’ past conduct, the Tribunal notes, that, on the evidence, Mr. Mehta’s past conduct as a licensee in other licensed occupations has been without blemish. He has been registered as a motor vehicle salesperson, motor vehicle dealer, real estate agent, real estate broker and mortgage broker. There was not a tittle of evidence that there were any consumer complaints against him or that the Registrar overseeing those licences had any cause or reason to take any disciplinary actions. His clean record in those offices over a period of many years is as much a part of his past conduct as his conduct in preparing BLB’s 2012 application.

The truthfulness of the information in Mr. Mehta’s own application is also confirmation of his honesty and integrity.

Ms. South pointed out that Mr. Mehta and his corporation had few sales over the last three years in the motor vehicle business. The Tribunal does not consider that evidence of much import, inasmuch as neither the Act nor its Regulations requires a minimum number of transactions to be completed in any one-year period by a registrant.

Cases cited

Both Counsel referred the Tribunal to the cases on which each relied to support each of their arguments. The cases have been reviewed and relevant portions quoted earlier in these reasons and need not be repeated here.

The Tribunal wishes to emphasize that all but one of the cases (Shine) dealt with a refusal to register rather than with a revocation of an existing licence. Only the Shine case dealt with a proposal to revoke an existing licence, as is the case in the matter involving Mr. Mehta and his corporation.

Even in Shine, the Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to revoke despite the evidence of two instances of odometer tampering and of selling an insurance wreck without disclosure. There is not, in the matter now before the Tribunal, the same egregious conduct on the part of Mr. Mehta.

The cases cited by Counsel for the Appellants deal with the necessity of finding that an applicant intentionally deceived the Registrar. The quoted portion of the Osman case, relied on by the Registrar, also refers to an intentional concealment of information.

Terms and Conditions

Counsel for the Appellants suggested that the Tribunal could impose conditions on the Appellants’ registrations, as had been done in the Skaf decision. Counsel for the Registrar made no submissions about the imposition of terms and conditions.

In view of the unblemished record of the Appellant and his corporation, and in the absence of evidence of any wrongdoing in the carrying on of their business, the Tribunal sees no merit in or necessity for imposing conditions on the registrations of the Appellants. Their business record is untainted and has not come under any criticism. The corporate Appellant is already subject to Terms and Conditions and there is no evidence of default.

CONCLUSION

Considering the evidence presented to the Tribunal and for all the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal concludes that there is insufficient evidence, on a balance of probabilities, of a deliberate intention to deceive on the part of the Appellants so as to warrant the revocation of their existing licences.

In addition, the Tribunal concludes, on the evidence before it and for the foregoing reasons, that there is insufficient evidence, on a balance of probabilities, that the past conduct of the Appellants affords reasonable grounds for belief that they will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

ORDER

Pursuant to the authority vested in it under the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal directs the Registrar not to carry out the Proposal to revoke the registration of SM Auto Rental Ltd. as a motor vehicle dealer and the registration of Baldev-Raj Mehta as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Act.