RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Rebecca Hines, Adjudicator
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
15085/MVDA
Case Name:
Charles Cadman, Bobby Wilkinson, and 2631273 Ontario Inc. o/a 2nd Chance Auto Sales v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant:
Justin M. Jukubiak, Counsel
Jonathan Gross, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Rishi Nageshar, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1The respondent is seeking a reconsideration of my decision released on May 28, 2024 (“decision”). The decision addressed an appeal of the Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 (the “Act”) to revoke the appellants’ registrations as motor vehicle salespersons and motor vehicle dealership. In that decision, I determined that the past conduct of the appellants affords reasonable grounds for belief that the appellants will not carry on business in accordance with the law and act with honesty and integrity. However, I found that the public interest could be adequately protected by attaching terms and conditions to the appellants’ registrations as motor vehicle salespersons and motor vehicle dealership and ordered the Registrar not to carry out its notice of proposal (“NOP”).
2The grounds for a reconsideration to be allowed are set out in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules 2023 (the “Rules”). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:
a. the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness;
b. the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; or
c. there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
3In its request for reconsideration, the respondent identifies criteria a) and b) of Rule 18.2 as the basis for the reconsideration request. The respondent requested that my decision be varied and that I order the Registrar to carry out its NOP and revoke all three appellants’ registrations as motor vehicle salespersons and motor vehicle dealership.
RESULT
4The respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
5Under Rule 18.2, the threshold for reconsideration is high. Reconsideration is a limited, error-correcting exercise, not a new hearing or an appeal of a hearing decision. The party requesting reconsideration must demonstrate how or why my decision falls into one or more of the criteria set out in Rule 18.2.
6The respondent argues that I acted outside of my jurisdiction and made errors of fact and law in paragraph [78] of my decision by making the following findings:
i) That the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (“OMVIC”) did not conduct a balanced investigation, and the appellants were not provided with timely disclosure; and
ii) That once the appellants became aware of the false insurance letters, they took appropriate steps; and they mitigated harm in two consumer transactions; and
iii) That the appellants had an unblemished history and were not directly involved in the misconduct outlined in the NOP.
The Tribunal did not act outside of its jurisdiction or commit a material breach of procedural fairness in rendering its decision.
7Section 9(5) of the Act provides the Tribunal with the jurisdiction to hold a hearing and 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 of registration.
8The respondent argues that I acted outside of my jurisdiction in paragraph 78 (ii) of my decision, where I stated that revocation of the appellants’ registration was not appropriate because OMVIC did not conduct a balanced investigation because the investigator did not interview the appellants, salespeople and employees involved in the transactions and did not provide timely disclosure. The respondent submits that this is not proper rationale for not revoking the appellants registration. It submits that it was outside my jurisdiction to impugn OMVIC’s investigation since it has no bearing on a) whether there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the appellants would not carry on business with