Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2014-09-12
FILE:
8399/MVDA
CASE NAME:
8399 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 Registration
Nicolae Veres o/a Fastlane Automotive Sales
Appellant
-and-
Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act 2002
Respondent
ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Alex McCauley, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
No one attending
For the Respondent:
Michelle Samaroo, Counsel
Heard by teleconference:
September 10, 2014
ORDER
Following the Appellant’s withdrawal of his appeal on August 21, 2014, the Respondent filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal continue with the hearing. The Respondent made oral submissions to the Tribunal and subsequently, at the Tribunal’s request, filed written submissions. The Appellant has not participated in the motion hearing
The Tribunal has reviewed the submissions of the Respondent in support of the motion to continue the hearing.
After careful consideration, the Tribunal denies the Respondent’s motion for the following reasons.
The Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction to continue the hearing in the face of the Appellant’s withdrawal of his appeal on August 21, 2014.
The authority for a hearing stems from Section 9(5) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act (the “Act”). The hearing can only be commenced upon the request of the Appellant. If no request is forthcoming, the Registrar imposes the sanctions as outlined in the Notice of Proposal (NOP).
There are no prohibitions or limitations within the Act that would prevent an Appellant from withdrawing his appeal. In fact, this is not an uncommon occurrence. In the face of evidence that arises in the hearing process, an Appellant often withdraws the appeal which allows the Registrar to proceed with the sanctions outlined in the NOP. In cases such as this, the hearing is thereby concluded. The Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction and the matter reverts to the Registrar to carry out the sanctions in the NOP.
The arguments put forth by the Respondent are not compelling. In both cases cited by the Registrar, the hearings were not commenced when the Appellant chose to withdraw. There is no precedent to continue a hearing of this nature once the Appellant has chosen to withdraw.
There is no prejudice to the Respondent if the Appellant withdraws the appeal. The NOP is carried out as if there had never been an appeal. The registration would therefore, in this instance, be revoked. The allegations contained within the NOP have in effect, not been disputed.
Consumers are not prejudiced. In fact, this quickly concludes the matter without consumers going through the anguish and expense of attendance (or any further attendance in the case of those who have already testified). The Consumers have full opportunity to seek further redress in whatever forum meets their needs including the courts. In these matters, consumers are now additionally armed with a NOP that has been carried out, which confirms the allegations against the Appellant.
This concludes the matter before this Tribunal. The file shall be closed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Alex McCauley, Member
Released: September 12, 2014```