Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
2015-01-30
FILE:
8920/MVDA
CASE NAME:
8920 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 Refuse Registrations
Paiman Mehrpoor o/a Canadian Premier Auto and Paiman Mehrpoor
Appellants
-and-
Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002
Respondent
DECISION ON MOTION
ADJUDICATOR:
Simon Dann, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellants:
Adetayo Akinyemi, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Sarah Aouchiche, Counsel
DECISION ON MOTION
Following the conclusion of the hearing in this matter, on November 27, 2014, the Appellants' Counsel, Mr. Akinyemi, submitted a Notice of Motion to Seek Leave to File Post-Hearing Submissions. This Notice was received by the Tribunal on December 18, 2014. This motion was heard in writing.
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties, the Tribunal dismisses the motion.
The Parties’ submissions
Mr. Akinyemi submitted that the grounds for the application are based on the interpretation of the Licence Appeal Tribunal's ("LAT") Rules 2 and 10, specifically:
to promote the fair and efficient resolution of disputes;
to allow parties to participate effectively in the process, whether they have a representative or are self-represented;
to ensure that procedures, orders and directions are proportional to the importance and complexity of the issues.
Mr. Akinyemi submitted that the combined provisions of Rules 2 and 10 enable the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to hold an in-person, electronic or written hearing or a combination of any of these formats which it may determine appropriate, if it accepts further submissions "in the interest of justice".
Mr. Akinyemi submitted that due to the late hour of the day, and the extent of time taken by the Registrar's Counsel to present her closing argument, he "rushed through his submissions, thereby omitting to respond to certain evidence raised by the Deputy Registrar" and that (now) "the Appellant is desirous of providing further submissions on 2 or 3 issues ... raised by (the Deputy Registrar's) testimony".
The Respondent requests that the motion be dismissed on the grounds that Mr. Akinyemi was not pressed to complete his submissions in any specific time and he was clearly assured by the Tribunal on that point. Ms. Aouchiche submitted that at no time did Mr. Akinyemi state he needed additional time or that he wished to provide further written submissions.
Ms. Aouchiche referred the Tribunal to Ans v. Paul (1980), N.S.J. No. 492, which states that "a Tribunal should not accept a procedural waiver unless it is clearly expressed and unambiguous". In this instance, and prior to the parties commencing closing submissions, the Tribunal offered the parties the opportunity to provide written submissions instead of oral closing submissions due to the time remaining in the hearing day.
Ms. Aouchiche submitted that at the hearing "the Appellants' Counsel clearly and unambiguously stated that he preferred to proceed with oral submissions" and argues that it is improper to provide "further arguments after the hearing has been concluded". The Tribunal's decision to proceed with oral submissions on November 27, 2014 "was only rendered following consultation with both parties.
Reasons and Decision
Counsel for the parties were clearly and unambiguously asked, by the Tribunal on November 27, 2014, as to whether they would prefer to end the day with the opportunity to prepare their closing submissions in written form, rather than orally.
Further, the parties were clearly advised that if they chose to proceed with oral submissions, the hearing day would be extended to allow each counsel the time to complete their oral submissions. While it was stated that the standard hours for the Tribunal offices would be exceeded, it was also made clear the counsel would not be rushed or cut short.
Both counsel agreed with the decision to proceed with their oral submissions, on the clear understanding that each counsel was confident they could present their closing submissions fully - there was no reference by either counsel of any concern about being rushed.
There was no suggestion or direction given to the parties that there would be an opportunity to provide written submissions after their oral submissions and following the conclusion of the hearing.
After careful consideration, the Tribunal concludes that the parties had the opportunity to choose either oral or (later) written submissions. The parties chose to make oral submissions and were given the opportunity to make those submissions in a fulsome and complete manner, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal concludes that on these particular facts, an opportunity to file additional reasons can only be seen as after-thought.
Therefore, the motion is dismissed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Simon Dann, Member
Released: January 30, 2015