Appeal of Proposals to Refuse and Revoke Licences issued by the Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, pursuant to the provisions of the Act.
Between:
Linton Philip Scott & Christine Kadian Latoya Scott o/a L.C.S. Auto Traders, Linton Philip Scott and Garth Martin
Appellants
and
Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Chloe Lester, Vice-Chair
Date: June 12, 2019
Written Submissions By:
For the Appellant: Linton Scott, self-represented
For the Respondent: Michael Rusek, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1Linton Scott was registered as a motor vehicle dealer (L.C.S. Auto Traders) and salesperson. The Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 (the “Registrar”) issued a Notice of Proposal (“NOP”) to refuse their registration as a motor vehicle dealer and revoke the registration as a sales person of Linton Scott and Garth Martin pursuant to section 9 of the Act. Linton Scott, Garth Martin and L.C.S. Auto Traders appealed the NOP to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”). On November 8, 2018 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered the Registrar to carry out the NOP.
2Mr. Scott filed a Request for Reconsideration on November 30, 2018 in accordance with section 18 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”).
3Mr. Scott does not organize his submissions in a typical format seen in a Request for Reconsideration and does not use the terminology referenced under Rule 18, but because he is not being represented by legal counsel latitude will be given to his submissions. It is also unclear whether Mr. Scott is seeking a reconsideration on behalf of all three appellants referenced in the Tribunal’s decision. That being said, I am only addressing the reconsideration on behalf of Mr. Scott, the author of the Request for Reconsideration and L.C.S. Auto Traders, the company that was registered in his and his wife’s name.
4Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5, I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with the applicable rules of the Tribunal.
RESULT
5Mr. Scott and L.C.S. Auto Trader’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
6The police conducted investigations between 2013 and 2014 because of an increase in car thefts. Mr. Martin was the target of those investigations. Because of Mr. Scott’s association with Mr. Martin his phone was wiretapped. During this investigation, the police heard what they allege was the appellant conspiring to have another person roll back the odometer on a Lexus. Mr. Scott was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit an indictable offence contrary to s. 465(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. The charges were eventually dropped.
7The Registrar took the position that Mr. Scott’s registration should be revoked because there were reasonable grounds to believe that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law, integrity and honesty based on his past conduct of:
a. Failing to notify the Registrar under Motor Vehicle Dealers Act (MVDA) of his criminal charge; and
b. Conspiring with another person to roll back a car’s odometer.
8They also took the position that L.C.S. Auto Traders is disentitled to a registration because:
a. It breached two conditions of its registration; and
b. Mr. Scott’s past conduct warrants refusal of the registration.
9Section 6 of the MDVA provides that an individual is entitled to registration unless the past conduct provides reasonable grounds to believe that the individual will not carry on business in accordance with law, integrity and honesty.
10The Registrar would have the onus to prove that the appellants are not entitled to registration based on a standard of proof being “reasonable grounds to believe”. The Tribunal found in its decision that the Registrar met that low burden of proof. The decision also found that L.C.S. Auto Traders failed to meet all the statutory requirements of the registration, namely that it admitted to trading motor vehicles from unapproved locations. The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal.
LEGAL TEST
11The grounds for a Request for Reconsideration are contained in section 18 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). The section states a Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless one or more of the criteria in Rule 18.2 are met:
(a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;
(b) The Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision;
(c) The Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result; or
(d) There is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.
ANALYSIS
Did the appellant meet one or more criteria under Rule 18.2 to grant a Request for Reconsideration?
12Mr. Scott asserts that he is entitled to a reconsideration pursuant to section 18.2 of the Rules. He has to establish that the Tribunal’s decision violates one of those criteria.
13Mr. Scott in his submissions apologizes for his unintentional wrongs that his actions caused and that he still maintains his innocence. He also explains the financial burden the Tribunal’s decision has placed him under and how it has affected his family life and him personally.
14In his submissions, Mr. Scott admitted to saying he had a Lexus and was going to roll back the odometer and sell it through a salvage auction, but he claims he never took possession of the Lexus and never rolled back an odometer on a Lexus. He apologizes for his thoughts to deceive but he never acted on those thoughts. He also argues that other car dealerships have been given lesser punishments for failing to comply with the Registrar’s requirements and that some leniency should be given to him.
15The respondent submits that the criteria under Rule 18 have not been met and that the Request for Reconsideration should be dismissed.
16To establish that the criteria under Rule 18 have been met, Mr. Scott would have to lead me in his submissions to where the adjudicator erred in fact or law or where the adjudicator violated the rules of natural justice. The other two criteria under Rule 18.2 are not applicable because Mr. Scott did not argue that the Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence or that there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.
17Mr. Scott has not provided any submissions or evidence which leads me to believe an error was made or that the rules of natural justice were violated. I understand that losing his registration as a car dealer and salesperson has affected his livelihood, family life and him personally. The standard of proof the Registrar must meet that the appellant is no longer entitled to a Registration is low. In the decision, Mr. Scott’s intentions to deceive consumers by rolling back the odometer was enough to prove that there were reasonable grounds to believe that he would not carry on business in accordance with law, integrity and honesty.
18Mr. Scott is placed in a position of trust and his clients trust him to act with integrity and honesty.
19Although Mr. Scott believes he has a reasonable explanation as to why L.C.S Auto Traders did not comply with the requirements to have proper signage and why he had multiple car lot locations, the explanations provided were insufficient to overcome his failure to comply with the Registrar’s requirements of registration.
20A request for Reconsideration is not an opportunity to rehash the submissions argued at the hearing or an opportunity to state new submissions. In this case, a Request for Reconsideration is a chance to fix an error that would lead to a different conclusion or address a violation of procedural fairness. Mr. Scott has not established either has occurred.
CONCLUSION
21For the reasons noted above, I deny the Request for Reconsideration in relation to the registrations of Mr. Scott and L.C.S. Auto Traders.
Chloe Lester
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division
Released: June 12, 2019