Licence Appeal Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis
FILE: 10311/MVDA
CASE NAME: 10311 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 Registration
John B. Grieco Appellant
-and-
Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act 2002 Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Mary Ann Spencer, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Justin Jakubiak, Counsel
For the Respondent: Michael Burokas, Counsel
Heard in Toronto: November 18, 2016
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 June 16, 2016 proposes to refuse to grant the registration of John B. Grieco (the “Appellant”), as a salesperson under the Act.
The Registrar is proposing to refuse the Appellant’s registration on the basis that the past conduct of the Appellant affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.
FACTS AND EVIDENCE
This appeal concerns an application for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson made on August 12, 2016, three years after the Tribunal had ruled against the Appellant when he had appealed an earlier refusal of his application. On August 15, 2011, the Appellant had submitted an application for registration as a salesperson to the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (“OMVIC”), the organization with delegated authority for administration of the Act. On October 1, 2012, the Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse that application. The Appellant appealed the Registrar’s Notice of Proposal and a hearing was held before this Tribunal in 2013.
On July 12, 2010, Mr. Grieco was charged with three counts of theft under $5,000 under the Criminal Code. It was alleged that he stole money and fare media from his employer, the Toronto Transit Commission (the “TTC”). The charges were stayed on May 7, 2012 due to trial delay. In August, 2006, Mr. Grieco declared personal bankruptcy. In its August 2, 2013 decision, the Tribunal found, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Grieco had committed the thefts. It also found that he had deliberately made false statements on his application for registration by failing to disclose both the criminal charges and his previous bankruptcy.
In its decision released on August 2, 2013, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal on the basis that the Appellant’s past conduct provided reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty, and that he had made false statements on his application for registration, in accordance with sections 6.1(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Act respectively.
On August 12, 2015, Mr. Grieco submitted a new application for registration as a salesperson under the Act.
Registrar’s Evidence
The evidence of the Registrar comprised a book of documents filed as Exhibit 3 and the testimony of Mary Jane South, OMVIC’s Registrar.
Ms South explained that the Act is a consumer protection legislation to which the honesty and integrity of salespersons is integral. When purchasing vehicles, consumers rely on receiving full and honest disclosure. She also noted that consumers provide their financial information to salespersons.
Ms South noted that Mr. Grieco did not fail to disclose information on his current application. She further noted that the application contains a certification by the sponsoring dealership that all of the contents of the application have been fully discussed with the applicant. This is important because the dealer will be responsible for oversight of the salesperson.
Because a previous application for registration by Mr. Grieco had been refused by the Registrar, the Ms South applied the test set out in section 12 of the Act in considering his current application. The first part of that test, that the application cannot be submitted until two years has passed since the refusal, was met. The second part of the test is whether there is new evidence or if there has been a change in material circumstances.
Ms South reviewed the findings in the August 2, 2013 Tribunal decision which are set out in the Registrar’s current Notice of Proposal. She agreed that item 9 in the Notice of Proposal only states that “there has not been a material change in circumstances” but testified that to make that determination, she reviewed the materials Mr. Grieco submitted with his application. In particular, he submitted a letter dated August 7, 2015, in which he notes that he was charged in July 2010 “with something that I did not commit.” Ms South indicated that the Registrar was concerned that Mr. Grieco did not accept responsibility for his previous actions, noting that the Tribunal had found, on a balance of probabilities, that he had stolen from his employer.
Ms South agreed that Trento Kia, the dealership sponsoring Mr. Grieco’s current application, is a franchise dealer and acknowledged that these types of dealerships have layers of management that would make it more difficult for a salesperson to sell a vehicle without the involvement of others. However, she noted that it would be still be possible for someone to ignore the protocols.
Appellant’s Evidence
The Appellant’s evidence comprised Mr. Grieco’s testimony and the testimony of Doug Dam, the general manager of the Trento Kia.
Mr. Grieco testified that after he left the TTC, he began, in 2010, to work for Mississauga Suzuki in the parts and service department. He obtained the position after he was interviewed by the dealership’s finance manager and by Doug Dam, the dealer principal, who would be his direct supervisor. His responsibilities included selling parts to customers and maintaining the parts inventory. Buyers paid by credit card or cash and Mr. Grieco operated the cash register. He also delivered inventory to repair facilities and processed their payment. There were no disciplinary issues during his employment.
Mr. Grieco testified that he told Mr. Dam about the criminal charges when he was initially hired. After the charges were stayed, he advised Mr. Dam. Asked if Mr. Dam had asked what that meant, Mr. Grieco indicated that he assumed Mr. Dam knew. On cross-examination, he denied that he suggested to Mr. Dam that he had “beat the charges”; he indicated he had told Mr. Dam that the charges were stayed due to delay.
Mr. Grieco was employed by Mississauga Suzuki when he submitted his 2011 application for registration as a salesperson to OMVIC. He testified that Mr. Dam signed and supported his application. Mr. Dam was made aware of the Tribunal’s August 2, 2013 decision; however, Mr. Grieco kept his position after the decision was released. He remained at Mississauga Suzuki until the dealership closed.
A few months after the dealership closed, Mr. Dam, who had become the general manager at Trento Kia, called Mr. Grieco about a position there. Mr. Dam and the dealership’s parts manager interviewed him and subsequently offered Mr. Grieco a position in the parts department, similar to the one he had held at Suzuki; Mr. Grieco handled cash, managed inventory and delivered parts to repair facilities.
Mr. Grieco testified that when he indicated he wished to become a salesperson, he spoke to Renzo Moser, the dealer principal at Trento Kia, about the 2013 Tribunal decision. He testified that he felt “downgraded” when he showed the decision to Mr. Moser but he believes Mr. Moser understands his situation. Asked if Mr. Moser expressed any concern about the decision, Mr. Grieco stated that he had not. He noted that after he submitted his application to OMVIC, OMVIC asked Mr. Moser to read and initial each page of that decision (Exhibit 4). The dealership’s controller is also aware of the decision. On cross-examination, he testified that he also had told Mr. Moser that there had been criminal charges against him which had been stayed; Mr. Moser did not ask him what that meant.
Mr. Grieco testified that he did not understand that the first Tribunal hearing would be “a trial”. He did not retain counsel but was represented by his brother-in-law, a former by-law enforcement officer. He maintains that he misunderstood the questions on the 2011 application for registration and this is why his answers were incorrect. He also denies that he stole from the TTC.
Mr. Grieco is currently employed as a salesperson at Home Depot. Asked why he is no longer working for Trento Kia, he indicated that because there was confidence that he would be moving to the sales department, the dealership had hired someone else to fill his parts position.
Mr. Grieco testified that he would be willing to accept conditions on his registration, including, for example, that he could only work for a franchise dealer, that he could not move without prior approval of the Registrar, and that he could not sign bills of sale.
Doug Dam, who has 30 years’ experience in the industry, is currently the general manager of Trento Kia, a position he has held since July 2014. Before joining Trento Kia, Mr. Dam was the general manager and a partner/owner of Mississauga Suzuki. As general manager at Trento Kia, Mr. Dam oversees all aspects of the dealership, including sales, parts and the relationship with the manufacturer.
Mr. Dam testified that he first met Mr. Grieco sometime around 2009 or 2010 when he hired Mr. Grieco to work in the parts department at Mississauga Suzuki. He confirmed that Mr. Grieco’s job was to sell parts over the counter and to deliver parts to repair facilities and collect payment. He had no issues with Mr. Grieco’s performance. Mr. Dam learned about Mr. Grieco’s issue with the TTC when Mr. Grieco expressed an interest in becoming a salesperson. Mr. Dam confirmed that he had still been comfortable working with him.
Mr. Dam testified that while at Trento Kia, Mr. Grieco dealt more with repair facilities than with consumers, sometimes delivering parts worth as much as $20,000. Asked if a salesperson’s job dealing directly with consumers would not be a more responsible one, Mr. Dam indicated that he thought that every job at the dealership is a responsible one and that each employee has to be held accountable for his/her performance.
At Trento Kia, Mr. Grieco’s direct supervisor was the parts manager. Mr. Dam indicated that he deals with his department managers on a regular basis; if there had been issues with Mr. Grieco, he would have learned of them.
Mr. Dam first saw the August 2013 decision of the Tribunal when Mr. Grieco indicated he was interested in becoming a salesperson at Trento Kia. He confirmed he is still comfortable with Mr. Grieco working in that role. The dealership’s controller and its owner, Mr. Moser, are also both aware of the decision.
On cross-examination, Mr. Dam indicated that he was aware that Mr. Grieco had not been proven guilty of theft. Mr. Grieco had told him that the criminal charges had been dropped and that was consistent with what Mr. Dam had read. He could not remember exactly when Mr. Grieco had told him about the charges but agreed that Mr. Grieco had denied the allegations. With respect to the Tribunal’s 2013 decision, he confirmed that he learned about it at the time it happened but stated he could not remember his reaction because at that time his biggest concern was with closing the Suzuki dealership. He confirmed that both he and Mr. Moser have read the decision; and, based on his experience with Mr. Grieco, he would still give him a chance. Asked to confirm he had signed Mr. Grieco’s current application for registration, Mr. Dam indicated he had and noted that he did not sign anything without reading it. After signing the application, he told Mr. Moser that he had done so and advised Mr. Moser that Mr. Grieco had some issues. Asked what he would do if he discovered that Mr. Grieco had in fact stolen from the TTC, Mr. Dam stated that he probably would not hire him.
Mr. Dam confirmed that the reason Mr. Grieco is no longer with Trento Kia is because both Mr. Dam and Mr. Grieco were confident he would be registered as a salesperson and Mr. Dam proceeded to hire someone else to fill his position in the parts department.
Trento Kia employs approximately 32 staff including a sales manager. Mr. Dam stated that very few vehicle sales are completed in cash; rather, 99.9% are credit deals. A salesperson will negotiate the deal but the dealership’s finance manager completes the paperwork which is then signed by either the sales or the finance manager.
Asked on cross-examination if it would be possible for Mr. Grieco to deceive his manager, Mr. Dam responded that anything is possible, stating “it’s possible there’s an earthquake somewhere right now”. Asked if he had gone out of his way to help Mr. Grieco, Mr. Dam noted that he himself had been helped when he first arrived in Canada and he tries to help others out.
Mr. Dam would accept any conditions placed on Mr. Grieco’s registration.
THE LAW
The Act states in part as follows:
Registration
- (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;
Refusal to register, etc.
- (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.
Further Application
- A person whose registration is refused, revoked or refused renewal may reapply for registration only if,
(a) the time prescribed to reapply has passed since the refusal, revocation or refusal to renew; and
(b) new or other evidence is available or it is clear that material circumstances have changed.
Regulation 333/08 sets out the time in which a person may reapply:
- The prescribed time for the purpose of clause 12(a) of the Act is two years.
The powers of the Tribunal are set out as follows in the Act:
- (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.
ISSUES
The issues to be decided are whether or not the Appellant has met the requirements to reapply for registration as a salesperson set out in section 12 of the Act and, if he has met the requirements, whether or not he is entitled to registration in accordance with section 6 of the Act.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – Has the Appellant met the legislative requirements to reapply for registration?
There is no dispute that Mr. Grieco has met the requirements of section 12(a) of the Act. His application was submitted to OMVIC after the prescribed two year period following the refusal of his previous application for registration had passed. At issue is whether he has met the requirement of section 12(b); is new or other evidence available or it is clear that material circumstances have changed since that refusal?
The August 2, 2013 Tribunal decision is not in dispute. The Tribunal found that Mr. Grieco made false statements on his application for registration and, on a balance of probabilities that he had stolen from his employer. There is no assertion that Mr. Grieco has made false statements on his current application for registration. However, Counsel for the Registrar argued that there is no new evidence nor have material circumstances changed; Mr. Grieco is not entitled to registration because he will not act with honesty and integrity.
The June 16, 2016 Notice of Proposal sets out the Tribunal’s 2013 findings; however, with respect to the test set out in section 12(b), it only states “there has not been a material change in circumstances that entitles Grieco to registration”. Ms South testified that in making her decision she reviewed the explanatory material submitted with Mr. Grieco’s application. That comprised a letter dated August 7, 2015 signed by both Mr. Grieco and Mr. Dam which states that Mr. Grieco had been charged in July 2010 “with something I did not commit. We went to court and all charges had been stayed by the Crown in July 2013.” Ms South’s position is this indicates that Mr. Grieco has not accepted responsibility for his past actions.
In his testimony, Mr. Grieco denied that he was responsible for the thefts. Mr. Jakubiak noted that Mr. Grieco, not having been found guilty of the criminal charges by a court, had the right to continue to assert his innocence. Moreover, he submitted that the fact Mr. Grieco was not represented by counsel and called no witnesses at the 2013 hearing should be considered; there was no evidence to speak to either who Mr. Grieco is or what he had done since leaving the TTC. Mr. Burokas submitted that the fact the Appellant did not have counsel representing him at the 2013 hearing should not be a consideration. He referred the Tribunal to the January 20, 2005 decision Re: Alireza Arshadnejad v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, in which the Tribunal writes:
...on a proper reading of section 8 (now section 12) in the context of the Act as a whole, the section is not intended to allow an applicant to simply re-litigate a matter already decided. The section is not worded as a simple opportunity to obtain a “reconsideration” on the same facts. The construction of the section is such as to clearly imply that there must be “new or other evidence”, or a material change in circumstances, on which to base the further application. As a result, the focus of any appeal from a refusal under this section must be squarely on the new evidence or material change.
Mr. Burokas also noted that Mr. Grieco did not apply for judicial review of the Tribunal’s 2013 decision. Even if this can be taken as evidence of Mr. Grieco’s acceptance of that decision, the Tribunal agrees with Mr. Jakubiak that, in the absence of being found guilty by the courts, Mr. Grieco has the right to continue to maintain his innocence. Notwithstanding that, the Tribunal is not questioning that Mr. Grieco was found to have committed the thefts; the focus of this hearing must be on whether there is new or other evidence or a material change in circumstances.
Mr. Burokas further submitted that the Appellant cannot rely on the passage of time as evidence of a material change in circumstances. He referred the Tribunal to Assaf (Re), [2013] O.L.A.T.D. No. 108, in which the Tribunal, at paragraph 23, wrote that the Appellant was required to demonstrate that circumstances had changed and that he could not rely on the passage of time as a material change. However, the Tribunal notes that Assaf can be distinguished from the current case in that, other than the passage of time, “the Applicant did not adduce any other evidence nor did he allege any material change in circumstance”.
Mr. Jakubiak submitted that there is new evidence and/or a material change of circumstance in this case; there is a history of Mr. Grieco working in positions of responsibility at dealerships since 2010 and his employer is aware of his history but has no concerns about hiring him as a salesperson.
The evidence is that Mr. Grieco worked in the parts department at Mississauga Suzuki from October 2010 to July 2013 when the dealership closed. In August 2013, he was hired into a similar position at Trento Kia. In both positions, he was responsible for some over-the-counter sales of parts which involved some cash handling and for the delivery of parts worth as much as $20,000 to repair facilities and payment handling. Mr. Dam testified that there were no issues with Mr. Grieco’s employment at either dealership. While Mr. Dam was not Mr. Grieco’s direct supervisor at Trento Kia, the Tribunal accepts his testimony that he would have been informed of any concerns by the parts manager. Further, the Tribunal notes that Mr. Grieco only stopped working at Trento Kia after his August, 2015 application for registration as a salesperson was submitted to OMVIC. Both he and Mr. Dam testified that, because there was confidence that the application would be approved, Mr. Dam filled the parts position in anticipation of Mr. Grieco’s move to sales.
The Tribunal finds Mr. Grieco’s record of successful employment at both Mississauga Suzuki and Trento Kia to be a material change in circumstance. It therefore finds he is eligible to reapply for registration under the Act.
Issue 2 – Does the past conduct of the Appellant afford reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty?
In considering whether or not an individual with act in accordance with law and with honesty and integrity, the Tribunal must consider all of an individual’s past conduct. In this case, there is evidence of approximately five years of employment at dealerships where Mr. Grieco had access to expensive parts and, on occasion, to cash payments. There is also dealership support for Mr. Grieco.
Mr. Burokas referred the Tribunal to 8098 v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, 2013 CanLII 58480 (ON LAT), a case in which the applicant was charged with theft from his employer. The charges were dismissed but the arbitrator in a grievance hearing decision found that the applicant had committed the theft. The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to refuse registration, noting that the applicant had not taken responsibility for his actions and that the only character reference was a letter from his proposed employer stating that the employer was aware of the applicant’s past but was prepared to hire him. The Tribunal concluded “that in light of the Applicant’s denials…there can be no confidence in the extent of the Applicant’s disclosure to his employer”.
Mr. Burokas submitted that the testimony in this case raises credibility questions. For example, Mr. Grieco testified that he told Mr. Dam about the criminal charges against him. Mr. Dam testified that he did not sign anything without carefully reviewing it; however, he signed the 2011 application on which Mr. Grieco did not disclose his criminal charges.
With respect to the degree of disclosure Mr. Grieco has made to his prospective employer, the Tribunal notes that there were some discrepancies in the testimony with respect to when and exactly what Mr. Grieco told Mr. Dam about his criminal charges. Mr. Grieco testified he told Mr. Dam about them when he was initially hired at Mississauga Suzuki. However, Mr. Dam testified that he learned about the incident at the TTC when Mr. Grieco completed his 2011 application for registration. Mr. Grieco testified that he told Mr. Moser, the dealer principal at Trento Kia, about his previous issues; however, Mr. Dam testified that he told Mr. Moser. Both Mr. Grieco and Mr. Dam testified in a straightforward manner. The Tribunal accepts that the discrepancies in their testimony could be due to the passage of time; almost six years have passed since Mr. Grieco was first hired by Mississauga Suzuki and over three years have passed since the Tribunal released its 2013 decision.
There is also some question as to what Mr. Dam might have understood when he learned the criminal charges against Mr. Grieco had been stayed, rather than “dropped” which is what Mr. Dam stated he had been told. Mr. Dam did testify that he learned of the Tribunal’s 2013 decision at the time it was released. The Tribunal notes that it is possible that Mr. Dam did not fully appreciate the findings in that decision; he admitted that he was pre-occupied with closing Mississauga Suzuki when it was released. It is therefore possible that Mr. Dam invited Mr. Grieco to apply for the parts position at Trento Kia without a full understanding that the charges had been stayed due to trial delay and that the Tribunal had found that he had stolen from a previous employer. However, a potential lack of understanding is not evidence of a failure to disclose. What is relevant to the Tribunal’s current decision is whether or not Mr. Dam and Mr. Moser are now supporting Mr. Grieco’s current application with a full understanding of his past conduct.
Mr. Dam testified he would “probably not” hire Mr. Grieco if he knew Mr. Grieco had stolen from the TTC; however, he also testified that he understood that Mr. Grieco had not been found guilty in a court of law. The Tribunal appreciates that Mr. Dam may be making a somewhat fine distinction. However, the Tribunal finds that full disclosure has been made. Mr. Dam testified that he has read the Tribunal’s 2013 decision in which the findings are clear. And, the documentary evidence (Exhibit 4) is that Mr. Moser has initialled each page of that decision. Mr. Dam was quite clear that Trento Kia is still prepared to hire Mr. Grieco based on his past performance. Mr. Burokas submitted that the fact Mr. Dam does not appear to be particularly concerned about the Tribunal’s 2013 decision should raise concerns. However, the Tribunal is not tasked with deciding whether or not the level of Mr. Dam’s risk tolerance is appropriate. Rather, it must decide whether or not Mr. Grieco’s employment as a salesperson would present a risk to the consumer.
The evidence is that Trento Kia is a franchise dealer. Mr. Dam testified that it is rare for its sales to be cash based; 99.9% are financed. The evidence is that salespersons cannot finalize deals; these must be approved by either the sales manager or the finance manager. Ms South testified that the management structure of franchise dealers would make it more difficult for a salesperson to sell a vehicle without the involvement of others. She did note that it would still be possible for someone to ignore the procedures; Mr. Dam also stated “anything is possible” but diminished the risk.
The Tribunal notes that a management structure where salespersons are supervised and not able to directly close deals significantly reduces the risk of malfeasance. More importantly, as noted above, Mr. Grieco’s record of employment at both Mississauga Suzuki and Trento Kia, where his responsibilities included handling cash and expensive inventory, is blemish-free.
Mr. Jakubiak referred the Tribunal to 7033 v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act 2002, 2012 CanLII 31497 (ON LAT). In 2002, the appellant in that case had been convicted of numerous offences for which he was pardoned in 2008. In 2011, he applied for registration as a salesperson, after been refused twice. He had worked in the service area of the sponsoring dealership for over four years. The Tribunal decided it was satisfied “there has been a change of circumstance” based on both the passage of time and the appellant’s employment history and the decision was that the appellant be registered subject to certain conditions.
In this case, the evidence is that Mr. Grieco has had incident-free employment in the parts departments at two dealerships for approximately five years where his responsibilities included over the counter cash sales and the delivery of and collection of payment for expensive parts. This conduct is consistent with registration. Both Mr. Dam and Mr. Moser, respectively the general manager and dealer principal of the sponsoring dealership, are aware of the details of the Tribunal’s 2013 decision and support Mr. Grieco’s application for registration based on this past performance. The sponsoring dealership is a franchise dealer where a salesperson is supervised and does not sign off on deals.
There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Grieco is going to repeat the conduct that led to his criminal charges in 2010. While Mr. Grieco continues to maintain he is not guilty of those charges, the Tribunal acknowledges that it is his right to do so in the absence of a court finding of guilt. In cases involving criminal conduct, an expression of remorse may be seen as a positive factor that supports a finding of rehabilitation and a lowered risk of re-offending, but the absence of this remorse cannot be held against the Appellant in these circumstances.
Based on the above evidence, the Tribunal finds that there are not reasonable grounds for belief that Mr. Grieco will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity. However, given the finding by the Tribunal in its August 2013 decision that the Appellant committed theft against his employer, the Tribunal finds that his registration should be with conditions in order to protect the interest of consumers. In this regard, it notes that both Mr. Grieco and Mr. Dam testified that they would accept any conditions the Tribunal imposed.
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 refuse the application for registration as a salesperson. It orders the Registrar to register the Appellant subject to the following conditions:
Mr. Grieco shall not be the final signatory on any sales or lease contracts on behalf of a dealer for a period of five years.
Mr. Grieco shall provide a copy of these conditions to the principal of his sponsoring dealership, obtain his written acknowledgement of their receipt, and provide a copy of the acknowledgement to the Registrar.
Mr. Grieco shall not transfer his registration as a salesperson under the Act to another dealer without having first obtained the prior written consent of the Registrar, not to be withheld unreasonably.
If Mr. Grieco is in breach of any of the above conditions, the Registrar may propose to revoke his registration as a salesperson under the Act.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_________________________
Mary Ann Spencer, Member
Released: December 2, 2016