Appeal from a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sch. B – to Refuse Registration
Between:
Ali Salahi
Appellant
and
Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: D. Stephen Jovanovic, Member
Written Submissions By:
For the Appellant: Ali Salahi, Self-Represented
For the Respondent: Jane Samler, Counsel
Overview
1The appellant, Ali Salahi, requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision to direct the respondent, the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 (“Registrar” and “MVDA” respectively), to carry out a proposal to refuse Mr. Salahi’s application for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.
2The facts giving rise to the Registrar’s proposal relate to the disappearance of Mr. Salahi’s BMW vehicle around the time that he filed for bankruptcy in 2010. He purchased the vehicle in August 2009 for $48,000 on credit. He made three monthly payments, but then defaulted. He had given BMW Financial Services Canada his contact information for one address which he maintained, but spent most of his time at another residence. BMW collections attempted to contact him, but was unable to do so.
3Around February 2010, the BMW vehicle disappeared from Mr. Salahi’s driveway. He states that he believed at the time that BMW had repossessed the vehicle. In April 2010, a bailiff attended at the appellant’s new residence for the purpose of seizing the vehicle. Mr. Salahi told the bailiff that he did not call the police when the vehicle disappeared and that he believed that BMW had taken it.
4In November 2010, Mr. Salahi filed for bankruptcy. He told the trustee in bankruptcy that BMW had repossessed the vehicle. He was granted a discharge in bankruptcy in November 2013. In April 2014, he was charged under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, with fraudulently disposing of property. The trial judge was certain that Mr. Salahi acted fraudulently either by transferring or concealing the vehicle, but acquitted him because there was no evidence that he had disposed of the vehicle.
5Mr. Salahi applied for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson in November 2014. The Registrar proposed to refuse registration based on each of the following grounds set out in s. 6(1)(a) of the MVDA:
(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;
6Mr. Salahi appealed the proposal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Registrar had established two of the three grounds for refusing Mr. Salahi’s registration.
7On the financial responsibility ground in s. 6(1)(a)(i), the Tribunal found that although Mr. Salahi had financial difficulties in the past, the evidence of his current financial position was insufficient to support refusal on that ground.
8With respect to the ground in s. 6(1)(a)(ii), the Tribunal found that Mr. Salahi’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty. The Tribunal found that even if Mr. Salahi initially believed that BMW had seized the vehicle, he ought to have known that this was not the case once the bailiff showed up at his home. However, he continued to maintain that BMW had repossessed the vehicle. The Tribunal was concerned that he is prepared to base his conduct on what he wills himself to believe, which suggests a lack of the required integrity and honesty.
9With respect to the ground in s. 6(1)(a)(iii), the Tribunal found that Mr. Salahi knowingly made a false statement on his application when he stated that BMW had never called or contacted him following the disappearance of the vehicle. The Tribunal found that given what was occurring in the bankruptcy-related proceedings, it was not credible that Mr. Salahi believed in 2014 that this statement was true.
10The Tribunal also considered whether conditions could be imposed as an alternative to refusal. However, Mr. Salahi’s sponsoring broker wanted Mr. Salahi to run the business, and therefore the Tribunal concluded that he was not in a position to provide supervision. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that conditions would not be appropriate.
11Mr. Salahi requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision on the basis that it contains errors of fact and law.
12The Executive Chair has delegated to me her responsibility to decide this request for reconsideration. To the extent that it may be necessary, Rule 18 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version 1 (April 1, 2016) (the “Rules”) is varied to allow for delegation of the reconsideration power, as may be done under the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017), which apply to proceedings commenced on or after October 2, 2017.
13For the reasons that follow, I dismiss this request for reconsideration.
analysis
14A request for reconsideration may be granted under Rule 18.2(b) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version 1 (April 1, 2016) if the “Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision.”
15Mr. Salahi’s request alleges numerous errors of fact and law. I have considered all of Mr. Salahi’s submissions, some of which have been grouped together in my analysis below. I am not satisfied that the test set out in Rule 18.2(b) has been met.
Arguments regarding financial responsibility
16Mr. Salahi argues that the Tribunal made several errors of fact and law in relation to the financial responsibility ground in s. 6(1)(a)(i) of the MVDA. It is not necessary for me to consider these arguments, as the Tribunal found that the Registrar had not established this ground for refusal. Therefore, any error by the Tribunal would not have affected the Tribunal’s decision.
Arguments relating to specific facts
17Mr. Salahi alleges a number of factual errors, including that the Tribunal erred by:
Finding that a BMW collections representative never received a response to her demand letter. Mr. Salahi argues that he could not have received the demand letter because it was sent to his old address.
Stating that the BMW representative discovered in March 2010 that the appellant’s credit cards were “maxed out”. Mr. Salahi states that in fact, his credit cards were maxed out in August 2009.
Referring to “various proceedings between the appellant and BMW.” The appellant submits that there were no proceedings between the appellant and BMW.
Stating that BMW did not receive notice of the creditors’ meeting. The appellant submits that there was evidence that a notice of creditor was sent to BMW but that it was not received.
18It is not necessary to determine whether these findings were factually incorrect, as none of them would have been likely to affect the Tribunal’s decision. None of these submissions impugn the Tribunal’s central finding that he showed a lack of integrity and honesty by conducting himself as if BMW had repossessed his vehicle, nor has Mr. Salahi otherwise shown how the alleged errors would have affected the Tribunal’s decision.
Arguments regarding Mr. Salahi’s belief that BMW repossessed the vehicle
19Mr. Salahi argues that the Tribunal made several errors with respect to its finding that Mr. Salahi ought to have known as of February 2010 that BMW did not seize his vehicle.
20First, Mr. Salahi states that BMW did not follow up with him by letter or phone call after the bailiff’s visit. This does not establish that the Tribunal erred. The Tribunal was entitled to rely on the evidence of the bailiff’s visit itself to conclude that Mr. Salahi ought to have understood at that point that BMW had not repossessed the vehicle.
21Second, Mr. Salahi submits that the Tribunal incorrectly stated that he had presented different versions of events. He states that he has always maintained that he believed in 2010 that BMW had repossessed the vehicle. I see no error. The decision explains that although it should have been clear as of April 2010 that BMW had not repossessed the vehicle, Mr. Salahi continued to subsequently maintain that it did. This finding was open to the Tribunal.
22Third, Mr. Salahi submits that the Tribunal erred by finding that he knowingly made a false statement in his 2014 application for registration. Mr. Salahi states that he gave evidence that he believed his 2014 statement to be true. However, it was open to the Tribunal to accept or reject that evidence. In rejecting it, the Tribunal relied on Mr. Salahi’s admission that he was avoiding all calls. It is not my role on reconsideration to reweigh the evidence.
Arguments related to lack of diligence
23Mr. Salahi takes issue with the Tribunal’s finding that he showed carelessness and lack of diligence in dealing with BMW and that these indicated a lack of integrity. He notes that he gave evidence as to his state of mind and his professional dealings in other regulated industries. He also contests the finding that he is only now coming to the realization that he should have been more diligent, as the Tribunal hearing was his first opportunity to provide an explanation.
24I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred in this regard. It was open to the Tribunal to rely on Mr. Salahi’s conduct – including avoiding phone calls, failing to advise BMW of his new address, failing to report the vehicle stolen, and continuing to maintain that in his bankruptcy filing that BMW seized the vehicle – as an indicator of lack of integrity. Further, the timing of his realization that he should have been more diligent would not have affected the result.
Arguments related to work history in other professions.
25Mr. Salahi submits that the Tribunal erred in stating that there was no evidence of his work history in other regulated professions. I see no error in that regard. He had argued at the hearing that the Tribunal should take into consideration the lack of regulatory sanctions in his role as a paralegal and real estate broker. Although Mr. Salahi had no obligation to put evidence of his work history before the Tribunal, it was Mr. Salahi who asked the Tribunal to consider his record in those professions, and the Tribunal was entitled to note that there was no evidence of his work history.
Arguments related to conditions
26Mr. Salahi submits that the Tribunal erred by finding that his sponsor could not provide supervision regarding conditions because the sponsor’s goal was to have the appellant run the business given the sponsor’s health conditions. The appellant submits that there was evidence that the sponsor would be at the business when needed, and the sponsor was not asked if he could supervise the appellant if conditions were imposed.
27The Tribunal’s findings were open to it on the evidence. The Tribunal was entitled to rely on evidence that Mr. Salahi’s sponsor wanted Mr. Salahi to run the business, and that there was insufficient assurance of the level of supervision necessary for the imposition of conditions.
ORDER
28Upon consideration of the submissions of the parties, Mr. Salahi’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Date of Issue: August 21, 2018
D. Stephen Jovanovic, Member