Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16962/MVDA

In the matter of an Appeal from a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registrations issued by the Registrar pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, c. 30, Sch. B.

Between:

WholesaleHub Dealer Solutions Inc. and Nickolas Sinko

Appellants

and

Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Bernard Trottier

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

No appearances

For the Respondent:

Shivali Vig, Counsel

Heard by videoconference: October 2, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Pursuant to a Notice of Proposal dated March 18, 2025 (“NOP”), the Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 (the “Registrar”) proposes to refuse the registration of WholesaleHub Dealer Solutions Inc. (“WholesaleHub”) as a motor vehicle dealer, and to refuse the registration of Nickolas James Sinko (“Sinko”) as a motor vehicle salesperson. Sinko is the sole Director, Officer, General Manager and Person-in-Charge of WholesaleHub.

2The Registrar issued the NOP pursuant to s. 9 of the Act. The NOP arises from allegations that:

1. Sinko’s financial position disentitles him and WholesaleHub to registration;

2. Sinko’s past conduct disentitles him and WholesaleHub to registration;

3. Sinko’s breach of a condition of registration disentitles him to registration as a motor vehicle salesperson; and

4. WholesaleHub’s failure to comply with a request made by the Registrar disentitles WholesaleHub to registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

3WholesaleHub and Sinko (the “appellants”) filed a Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) of the NOP on April 11, 2025, pursuant to s. 9(2) of the Act.

ISSUES

4The issues in dispute are as follows:

1. Whether, having regard to their financial position, the appellants cannot reasonably be expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of business pursuant to s. 6(1)(a)(i) and 6(1)(d)(ii) of the Act;

2. Whether the past conduct of Sinko affords reasonable grounds for belief that the appellants will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, pursuant to s. 6(1)(a)(ii) and 6(1)(d)(iii) of the Act;

3. Whether Sinko is in breach of a condition of registration pursuant to s. 6(1)(f) of the Act;

4. Whether WholesaleHub failed to comply with a request made by the Registrar under s. 1(1) and pursuant to s. 6(1)(g) of the Act; and

5. Whether any of the alleged conduct, if proven, disentitles WholesaleHub and/or Sinko to registration under the Act.

6. If I find that any of the appellants is disentitled to registration, then I must determine whether to direct the respondent to carry out its NOP, or whether to substitute my opinion for that of the Registrar, by attaching conditions to a registration.

RESULT

5For the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden of proving the allegations that WholesaleHub’s financial position and failure to comply with a request for information disentitle it to registration as a motor vehicle dealer under the Act.

6I therefore direct the Registrar to carry out its proposal to refuse the registration of WholesaleHub as a motor vehicle dealer.

7For the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has not satisfied its burden of proving that Sinko’s financial position, past conduct, and breach of a condition of registration disentitle him to registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Act.

8I find that the public interest can be adequately protected through granting registration of Sinko as a motor vehicle salesperson with conditions.

9I therefore deny the Registrar’s proposal to refuse the registration of Sinko as a motor vehicle salesperson, and I order that Sinko’s registration be granted with conditions.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Appellant non-attendance at the hearing

10A case conference for this matter was held with the parties on June 2, 2025. The case conference report and order (“CCRO”), issued the same day, detailed the issues in dispute, the agreed-upon potential dates for the hearing, the exchange of documents, witnesses for the hearing, and other procedural arrangements.

11On June 23, 2025, the Tribunal sent an Amended Notice of Videoconference Hearing to the parties, indicating that a two-day videoconference hearing would be held on October 2 and 3, 2025, starting at 9:30 a.m. each day, in accordance with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (the “SPPA”). The Notice included contact information of the Tribunal should the parties have any questions or concerns about the scheduled hearing.

12The hearing commenced on October 2, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., as scheduled. The Registrar’s counsel attended. Neither Sinko nor a representative of the appellants attended. Under Rule 3.7.1, if a party, who has been given notice of a hearing in accordance with the SPPA, does not attend their electronic hearing within 30 minutes of the scheduled start time as stated in the hearing notice, the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing in absence of that party, and/or make any orders it considers appropriate in the circumstances.

13After the scheduled start of the hearing, the Tribunal attempted to contact Sinko via email and telephone, but these attempts were unsuccessful. Sinko’s telephone number, on record with the Tribunal, was not in service. I note that following the case conference, neither the Tribunal nor the Registrar received a document brief or a list of witnesses from the appellants, according to the timelines established in the CCRO. Also, the Tribunal did not receive a request for an adjournment before the hearing.

14The Registrar submitted that it has the onus to prove the allegations set out in its NOP, that it had scheduled a witness to provide testimony, and that it was ready to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the appellants.

15By 10:00 a.m., Sinko did not join the videoconference and did not contact the Tribunal. Under Rule 3.7.1, I ordered that we proceed with the hearing in the absence of the appellants. The hearing concluded at 12:30 p.m. on October 2, 2025, by which time the appellants did not join the videoconference hearing, and they did not otherwise contact the Tribunal.

Appellants’ non-filing of documents

16The CCRO ordered that all documents they intend to rely for the hearing be exchanged and filed with the Tribunal no later than 30 days before the hearing, namely by September 2, 2025. The CCRO ordered, also, that any documents previously filed with the appeal or for the case conference must be resubmitted before the hearing.

17Under Rule 9.3, I may consider evidence that does not comply with the CCRO if:

1. The evidence is relevant;

2. There is no prejudice to either party by the admission of that evidence;

3. The information lies within the knowledge of the other party; and

4. The other party does not oppose the admission of that evidence.

18The only documents that the appellants submitted are the NOA and an attachment to the NOA, exchanged and filed on April 11, 2025. The NOA and the attachment were both included in the Registrar’s book of documents. I find that the NOA and the attachment meet the criteria for admission under Rule 9.3 noted above, and I will admit them into evidence. In the absence of the appellants at the hearing, I will take note of the arguments advanced by the appellants in the NOA and the attachment.

Respondent late filing of book of documents

19The Registrar exchanged and filed a book of documents for the hearing on May 22, 2025, consisting of a 210-page portable document format file (“PDF”). The Registrar exchanged and filed a “Volume 2” book of documents on September 2, 2025, consisting of a 4-page PDF.

20On September 29, 2025, the Registrar exchanged and filed an amended book of documents, consisting of a 259-page PDF. The Registrar submitted that the amended book of documents contained all the documents previously exchanged and filed, with the addition of emails between Sinko and the Registrar, as well as a Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (“MTO”) Driver Record, dated July 29, 2024.

21On October 2, 2025, the morning of the hearing, the Registrar exchanged and filed a “Volume 3” book of documents, consisting of additional emails between Sinko and the Registrar, from January and February of 2025. Volume 3 is a 6-page PDF.

22The Registrar submitted that the additional information in the amended book of documents and Volume 3 are all emails between Sinko and the Registrar, or the MTO Driver Record. It argued that they are relevant and within the knowledge of Sinko. Although the Registrar acknowledged they were filed late, the Registrar requests that the amended book of documents and Volume 3 be admitted into evidence.

23I find that the documents requested to be admitted into evidence are potentially relevant and within the knowledge of Sinko. For those reasons, I find that there is little, if any, prejudice to the appellants. Under Rule 9.3, I admitted the late-filed documents into evidence.

ANALYSIS

The Law and the Onus

24The Act and Ontario Regulation 333/08 (the “Regulation”) prescribe registration requirements for motor vehicle dealers and salespersons in Ontario, to ensure that the public receives honest, ethical and competent services. To achieve that, the Act prohibits anyone from acting as a dealer or salesperson unless that person holds a registration granted under the Act by the Registrar.

25Section 6 of the Act sets out factors which may disentitle an applicant or registrant from registration. If the Registrar believes that a registrant is not entitled to registration under s. 6, the Registrar may propose to refuse the registrant’s registration pursuant to s. 8.

26With the exception of issue 2, the onus is on the Registrar to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the facts relied on in support of its position that the appellants are not entitled to registration.

27As noted, issue 2 is whether the past conduct of Sinko affords reasonable grounds for belief that the appellants will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

28For issue 2, under s. 6(1)(a)(ii) and s.6(1)(d)(iii) of the Act, the onus is on the Registrar to prove that the past conduct of the appellants affords reasonable grounds for belief that they will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. The standard of “reasonable grounds for belief” was set out by the Court of Appeal in Ontario Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario v. 751809 Ontario Inc. (Famous Flesh Gordon’s), 2013 ONCA 157. The respondent does not have to show that the appellant’s past conduct makes it more likely than not that the business will not be carried out as required, but only that its belief to that effect is based on more than mere suspicion and on compelling and credible information. Further, the respondent must also show that there is a nexus between the past conduct and the appellants’ ability to conduct business under the Act serving the interests of the public. (See Nagy v. Registrar, Real Estate Business Brokers Act, 2012 ONSC 325 at paras. 58-61 (Div. Ct.), (“Nagy”); and C.S. v. Registrar, Real Estate Business Brokers Act, 2019 ONSC 1652 at para. 32 (Div. Ct.)).

29Under s. 9(5) of the Act, following a hearing, I may by order direct the Registrar to carry out its proposal or substitute my opinion for that of the Registrar. In that regard, I may attach conditions to my order or to a registration.

30A hearing of a notice of proposal is a hearing de novo in which the Tribunal does not owe deference to the Registrar’s decision. Thus, even if I find that the appellant is not entitled to registration for any of the reasons set out in the entitlement provisions of the statute, I must still consider whether refusal is the appropriate remedy.

Background

31The NOP detailed the following relevant background information for this matter:

1. On or about January 23, 2013, Sinko was first registered as a motor vehicle salesperson.

2. In March of 2017, Sinko submitted an Individual Renewal Application (the “2017 Application”) to renew his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson. This registration expired in 2019.

3. On or about July 20, 2021, Sinko submitted an Individual Reapply Application (the “2021 Application”) to register as a motor vehicle salesperson. In the 2021 Application, Sinko disclosed that he had filed a consumer proposal in or around November 2016, which was converted to bankruptcy in November 2018, and ultimately discharged in 2019. Sinko did not disclose the consumer proposal in the 2017 Application.

4. During the review of the 2021 Application, the Registrar conducted a credit check that revealed that Sinko was subject to outstanding collections totaling $6,492.00. The Registrar inquired about the collections, and Sinko represented that he would undertake to address them once he secured a job as a motor vehicle salesperson.

5. The Registrar relied on Sinko’s representations and approved the 2021 Application, subject to terms and conditions as follows:

i. Sinko agrees not to apply to be a motor vehicle dealer.

ii. Sinko will provide the Registrar a written update on the status of the collections by July 1, 2022.

6. By July 1, 2022, Sinko did not provide the Registrar with a written update on the status of the collections.

7. On or about June 5, 2023, Sinko submitted a Salesperson Change Application (the “2023 Application”). In this application, Sinko disclosed that collections were still outstanding and that he undertook to address them within a year.

8. Again, the Registrar relied on Sinko’s representations and approved the 2023 Application, subject to terms and conditions as follows:

i. Sinko agrees not to apply to be a motor vehicle dealer.

ii. Sinko will provide the Registrar a written update on the status of the collections by June 1, 2024.

9. By June 1, 2024, Sinko did not provide the Registrar with a written update on the collections.

10. On June 3, 2024, Sinko submitted an Individual Reapply Application (the “2024 Application”) and a Business Application to register WholesaleHub as a motor vehicle dealer, pursuant to the Act.

11. On the Business Application, Sinko identified his father Antony “Anton” Sinko (“Anton”) as an interested person related to WholesaleHub, as a result of a gift of $40,000 provided as start-up capital, if registration were granted.

Issue 1: Whether the appellants cannot reasonably be expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of business

32I find that the Registrar has demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that WholesaleHub cannot reasonably be expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of business. I agree with the Registrar, that WholesaleHub’s registration as a motor vehicle dealer should be refused on the ground of financial irresponsibility.

33I find that the Registrar has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that Sinko is disentitled to registration as a motor vehicle salesperson for reasons of financial irresponsibility.

34The NOP states the following:

1. While reviewing the 2024 Application, Muthu Vijay, Registration Officer for the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (“OMVIC”), obtained Sinko’s credit report. The report revealed that Sinko had six collection accounts outstanding, totaling $6,444, along with a past due account in the amount of $8,875, bringing his collections to a total of $15,319.

2. When Vijay inquired about the collections, Sinko partly attributed the amount owing to being a victim of identity theft. He confirmed that he would take care of the collections once registration was granted to WholesaleHub.

3. Sinko’s personal bank statements reveal transactions where money is transferred from an account identified as “WholesaleHub Dealer Solu-” into Sinko’s personal account.

4. The money transferred into Sinko’s personal bank account is a portion of the gift intended to serve as WholesaleHub’s capital.

5. Vijay identified three transactions on Sinko’s personal bank statements, conveying withdrawals of approximately $3,000. When asked for an explanation, Sinko indicated that these withdrawals were intended as support for his father, Anton, and mother Nancy Sinko (“Nancy”) with their line of credit, approximating $40,000.

6. Despite the capital being identified as a gift from his father, approximately $34,000 of the total amount was transferred back to Anton on or about August 6, 2024. Sinko indicated that the reason for this was because the money was needed to reconcile “Anton’s account”. The balance remaining in WholesaleHub’s account after this transfer was -$25.

35The Registrar submits that, pursuant to s. 9 and s. 6(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, WholesaleHub should be refused registration as a motor vehicle dealer. The Registrar submits, also, that Sinko has not demonstrated financial responsibility, and that pursuant to s. 9 and s. 6(1)(a)(i) of the Act, he should be refused registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

36The Registrar submits that Sinko had collections that were outstanding as far back as July of 2021. The Registrar directed me to a credit report issued by TransUnion of Canada, dated July 26, 2024, that indicated that Sinko had past due collections totaling $8,875, with six unpaid bills totaling $5,655 transferred to third-party agencies for collection. The Registrar submitted that Sinko has not provided any information since the 2024 Application indicating that these outstanding collections had been resolved.

37The Registrar further directed me to a credit report by Equifax Canada Co., dated November 1, 2023, that indicated that Sinko had a credit score of 420, which Equifax rates as “poor”.

38The Registrar directed me to an undated letter from Sinko to Vijay, that was sent in 2024 following OMVIC’s request for information on the source of WholesaleHub’s proposed startup capital. The letter states that Anton would be providing Sinko with a financial gift of $40,000, that the funds were accumulated over time through Anton’s personal savings, and that Anton would have no financial interest in the business. The Registrar then directed me to a statement for the personal line of credit of Nancy from Scotiabank, dated July 8, 2024, indicating that Nancy’s line of credit had a balance of $40,189.78.

39Lastly, the Registrar directed me to the transaction history of WholesaleHub’s bank account with Meridian Credit Union, dated September 5, 2024. Starting with a balance of $39,171.18 on June 25, 2024, the transaction history shows a series of withdrawals from the account, resulting in a balance of $34,047.51 on August 5, 2024. A cheque for $34,047.51 was written on August 6, 2025, with a service charge of $25, resulted in an account balance of -$25.00 on August 31, 2024.

40Susan Dicks, Registration Services Manager at OMVIC, testified at the hearing. Dicks supervises the registration officers (including Vijay) who review applications. She testified that Sinko’s submissions, that the $40,000 in startup capital was a gift, combined with evidence that it was borrowed funds from Nancy’s personal line of credit, and subsequently withdrawn entirely from the business account, indicate that WholesaleHub does not meet the financial responsibility threshold to entitle it to registration as a motor vehicle dealer. Dicks testified, also, that Sinko has not demonstrated financial responsibility, particularly in not resolving outstanding collections, and that this would disentitle him to registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

41Sinko submits, in his NOA, that the registration process places undue burden on a registrant to disclose personal financial matters. He submits, further, that he acted in good faith in disclosing his financial position, and that he proposed reasonable terms to handle his debt repayment. He argues that while he was subject to past financial hardship, he has demonstrated a reasonable plan for resolving arrears and restoring his credit rating.

42He submits that the application process is inefficient, lasting over nine months from his applications to the filing of his appeal, creating financial pressure on a small business with limited resources.

43I find that WholesaleHub cannot reasonably be expected, on a balance of probabilities, to be financially responsible in the conduct of its business. I find that the stated source of the startup capital, a financial gift from Anton, is inconsistent with the personal line of credit from Nancy, which was, it appears, subsequently repaid to Anton. I agree with the Registrar, that WholesaleHub’s registration as a motor vehicle dealer should be refused on the grounds of financial irresponsibility, pursuant to s. 6(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.

44I find that Sinko’s past financial hardship, by itself, does not disentitle him to register as motor vehicle salesperson, pursuant to 6(1)(a)(i) of the Act. I agree with the Registrar that Sinko’s outstanding collections are worrisome, but I find that the scale of the collections is not such that it should disentitle him from pursuing the professional activity of selling motor vehicles. I note that the 2021 and 2023 Applications were approved with outstanding collections of $6,942 owing. The Registrar has not directed me to a section in the Regulation that states, specifically, that the level of collections during the 2024 Application, $15,319, disentitles him to register as a salesperson, and how that is different materially than the level of collections that allowed his applications to be approved in 2021 and 2023.

45I assign little weight to Sinko’s 2016 consumer proposal and 2018 bankruptcy, that were ultimately discharged in 2019, because I have no evidence before me that demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, that this past financial hardship would prevent Sinko from providing honest, ethical and competent services as a salesperson. Similarly, I have no evidence before me that demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, that a poor credit rating would prevent Sinko from providing honest, ethical and competent services as a salesperson.

46For these reasons, I find that the Registrar is not entitled to refuse the registration of Sinko as a motor vehicle salesperson for reasons of financial irresponsibility, pursuant to s. 6(1)(a)(i) of the Act.

Issue 2: Whether Sinko’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty

47I find that the Registrar has not demonstrated that Sinko’s conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business as a motor vehicle dealer or as a salesperson in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty. I find that the Registrar is not entitled to refuse the registration of WholesaleHub as a dealer and Sinko as a salesperson based on past conduct.

48The Registrar submits that on June 3, 2024, as part of the 2024 Application, Sinko indicated that he held a valid driver’s licence and that he had never been charged with an offence under any law, within or outside of Canada. On the same document, Sinko signed a Consent and Undertaking, acknowledging that he understood that he must notify OMVIC within five days of any changes to the information provided, and that the obligation continues throughout any period of registration.

49The Registrar directed me to Sinko’s MTO Driver Record, dated July 29, 2024, that indicated that he had his driver’s licence suspended as of July 28, 2024. The Registrar also directed me to a copy of a Notice of Suspension and Impoundment, also dated July 28, 2024, indicating that Sinko’s licence was suspended for 90 days following a charge of one count of impaired driving, which is a Criminal Code of Canada offence.

50The Registrar directed me, further, to a court summons, dated September 25, 2024, indicating that Sinko was charged with driving while his licence was suspended, contrary to s. 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

51The Registrar submits that Sinko failed to adhere to his obligations, under the signed Consent and Undertaking, to notify OMVIC of the changes to the information that he had provided in his 2024 Application, namely that he had been charged with a criminal offence, and that he no longer had a valid driver’s licence.

52The Registrar argues that Sinko has exhibited a pattern of behaviour that demonstrates a disregard for compliance requirements and the law. The Registrar argues that Sinko’s continued operation of his vehicle, after his licence was suspended, affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law.

53The Registrar directed me to an email, dated September 8, 2025, where Sinko provided a response to the Registrar’s requests for information on his impaired driving charge. Sinko responded that the suspension was a “temporary administrative matter”. The Registrar directed me to another email, dated October 9, 2024, where Sinko provided an explanation as to why he was charged with driving a vehicle while his licence was suspended. In the email, Sinko tells the Registrar that he was stopped while moving a vehicle “under the mistaken belief that [his] suspension had ended.” The Registrar argues that these emails are misleading and evasive, and they exhibit a pattern of behaviour that affords grounds for belief that Sinko would not conduct business with integrity and honesty.

54In the NOA, Sinko submits that he has a decade-long track record of compliance with the Act, with hundreds of online reviews attesting to his high standards of respect and transparency. He submits, further, that any omission or delay in providing documentation was the result of misunderstanding of OMVIC’s information requirements, and that it was not based on any intention to mislead.

55Regarding WholesaleHub’s ability to conduct business with honestly and integrity, Sinko submits, also in the NOA, that he has spent countless hours designing internal procedures, compliance processes and ethical controls in preparation for future growth and additional staff.

56Further in the NOA, Sinko submits that the refusal of registration for WholesaleHub as a dealer would not serve the public interest, and that it would hinder the advancement of someone who is committed to contributing positively and responsibly to Ontario’s automotive industry.

57As stated in Nagy at para. 37, “[t]he standard of conduct necessary for revocation of the right to earn a livelihood is a high one, and is generally recognized as such in professional regulation regimes.” The decision in Nagy directs me further in that, under s. 6(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, I must consider whether there is a nexus between the appellant’s past behaviour and the interest of consumers, in this case future buyers of motor vehicles. I find that Registrar has not demonstrated, in this case, that there is that nexus, and that future vehicle buyers would be at risk because of Sinko’s conduct.

58Although Sinko was late in providing information on his charges for impaired driving, and for driving with a suspended licence, he did provide that information to the Registrar in due course. I find that the late submission of this information does not meet the threshold for refusal of registration. The standard for updating OMVIC on the status of charges within five days is not a standard of perfection.

59I find that the Registrar has not demonstrated that the past conduct related to Sinko’s charges would lead to putting the interests of consumer at risk, because the behaviour did not involve any interaction with consumers.

60For the reasons above, I find that the Registrar is not entitled to refuse the registration of Sinko as a salesperson under s. 6(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, for reasons of his past conduct.

61For the same reasons, I find that the Registrar is not entitled to refuse the registration of WholesaleHub as a dealer under s. 6(1)(d)(iii) of the Act, for reasons of Sinko’s past conduct.

Issue 3: Whether Sinko breached a condition of registration

62I find that the Registrar has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that Sinko’s breach of his conditions of registration disentitles him to registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

63The Registrar approved Sinko’s 2023 Application (submitted June 5, 2023) to be a motor vehicle salesperson, subject to terms and conditions, among others, as follows:

1. Sinko agrees not to apply to be a motor vehicle dealer.

2. Sinko will provide the Registrar a written update on the status of the collections by June 1, 2024.

64The Registrar directed me to the Terms and Conditions attached to Sinko’s 2023 Application, signed by Sinko agreeing to the above restrictions. The Registrar argues that Sinko applied to be a motor vehicle dealer, in breach of the first condition of registration above.

65In addition, the Registrar directed me an email from Susan Dicks to Sinko, dated January 23, 2025, where she asks Sinko to remove the OMVIC logo from his WholesaleHub advertisements, including social media accounts (Facebook and LinkedIn) and online communications, because WholesaleHub was not yet approved as a dealer. Dicks testified that Sinko’s statement in his email signature, that WholesaleHub “conduct[s] business exclusively with registered motor vehicle dealers in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002”, is false and misleading because he is not yet approved as a dealer.

66The Registrar submits that Sinko did not provide an update on the status of outstanding collections by June 1, 2024, in breach of the second condition above. The Registrar submits that Sinko only provided information on the status of his collections when asked by the Registrar on July 29, 2024, and he provided a written response on August 11, 2024.

67Sinko submits, in the attachment to his NOA, that the condition barring him from applying to be a dealer is unnecessarily restrictive and effectively excludes him from professional advancement.

68He submits, further, that any omissions or delays in providing documentation were the result of genuine misunderstanding or due to communication breakdowns with OMVIC, and they were not intended to mislead.

69I find that Sinko is in breach of the condition attached to his 2023 registration to not apply to be a dealer. I find, however, in reviewing the 2023 registration, that there is no time limit on the condition. It does not state whether there is a date when the condition would expire, or whether it would be for life. Based on Sinko’s submissions in his NOA, I find that Sinko believed that the condition had expired when he submitted his 2024 application.

70The Registrar’s submits that WholesaleHub portrayed itself to be an active dealer in its online advertising and communications, in non-compliance with s. 4(1) of the Act that prohibits any person from acting as a motor vehicle dealer unless the person is registered as a dealer under the Act. However, this non-compliance is not identified as a ground for refusal to registration in the Registrar’s NOP, and it is not before me as an issue in dispute. I make no finding on this allegation from the Registrar.

71I find that Sinko is in breach of the condition of his 2023 registration to provide a written update on the status of his collections by June 1, 2024. I disagree with Sinko that there would be a miscommunication of this requirement, because the line in the signed terms and conditions consists of a straightforward declarative sentence. I find, however, that Sinko provided written updates on the status of his colllections, via his credit report and email communications, in the months following that date. I find that the standard for providing updates is not one of perfect adherence to dates. I note that the Registrar approved Sinko’s 2021 and 2023 Applications even though he did not provide a written update on his collections by the requested dates.

72For the reasons above, I find that the Registrar is not entitled to refuse the registration of Sinko as a motor vehicle salesperson on the ground that Sinko is in breach of two conditions of registration pursuant to s. 6(1)(f) of the Act.

Issue 4: Whether WholesaleHub failed to comply with a request made by the Registrar

73I find that WholesaleHub failed to comply with requests made by the Registrar, and that the Registrar is entitled to refuse its registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

74The Registrar directed me to its email to Sinko, dated August 23, 2024, requesting, among other items, an individual application and a background check from Anton, because he was listed an interested party in WholesaleHub’s application. Sinko responded on September 8, 2024, stating the claimed $40,000 in startup capital was a gift, and that Anton would be in “no way involved with the business operations, accounts, purchases or sales”. Sinko requested confirmation that Anton’s information was not required.

75The Registrar directed me to its follow-up email to Sinko, dated September 26, 2024, confirming that it would require, among other items, the individual application and background check from Anton, as well as personal Canada Revenue Agency Notices of Assessment (“NOAs”) from Anton. The email informed Sinko that s. 6 of the Act and the Regulation obligate the Registrar to consider the financial position of interested parties. The email also requested an explanation as to why WholesaleHub had a negative balance in its bank account. The email notified Sinko that, if the Registrar did not receive this information by October 11, 2024, it would consider that WholesaleHub had chosen to not continue with the application.

76The Registrar then directed me to an email from Sinko to the Registrar, dated October 9, 2024, where Sinko indicated that Anton would not provide an individual application, background check and NOAs. Sinko indicated that he would provide other information requested by the Registrar.

77The Registrar directed me to its email to Sinko, dated November 12, 2024, again requesting Anton’s individual application, background check and NOAs, and again requested an explanation on the negative balance in the bank account. Sinko responded the same day, indicating the Anton would not be involved in the business in any way, and that Anton would not be disclosing any information to the Registrar. Sinko argued in this email that the request to provide Anton’s information was unreasonable and not in keeping with OMVIC’s mandate. Sinko did not provide an explanation for the negative account balance in this email.

78Dicks testified that Anton is an interested party under the Act because of the $40,000 in startup capital, and that requests for information from interested parties are important to maintain regulatory integrity. The Registrar argues that, even without a formal ownership stake, interested parties can exercise control over a dealer. Dicks testified that, by the date of the hearing, WholesaleHub has not provided the requested information of Anton, nor has WholesaleHub provided an explanation for the negative bank account balance. The Registrar argues that, because it has not complied with the Registrar’s requests for information pursuant to s. 6(1)(g) of the Act, WholesaleHub is disentitled to registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

79Sinko argues, in the attachment to the NOA, that Anton’s refusal to provide personal financial information was based on his view that he was not a formal participant in the business. Sinko argues, further, that the Registrar’s expectations regarding Anton’s financial disclosure were both unreasonable and unclear. Sinko submits that he has acted in good faith at all times, including when explaining the financial position of WholesaleHub. For these reasons, Sinko argues that the refusal of registration of WholesaleHub should be denied.

80Section 6(4) of the Act defines an “interested person” in respect of another person, if in the opinion of the Registrar:

1. the person has or may have a beneficial interest in the other person’s business;

2. the person exercises or may exercise control either directly or indirectly over the other person; or

3. the person has provided or may have provided financing either directly or indirectly to the other person’s business.

81I find that Anton meets the definition of an “interested person” pursuant to the Act, because he may have a beneficial interest in WholesaleHub and because, specifically, he directly or indirectly provided financing to WholesaleHub.

82I find that WholesaleHub failed to comply with the Registrar’s request for information regarding an interested party, namely Anton.

83I find that WholesaleHub failed to comply with the Registrar’s request for an explanation of the business’s negative bank balance.

84I find that its failure to comply with requests made by the Registrar disentitles WholesaleHub to registration as a motor vehicle dealer pursuant to s. 6(1)(g) of the Act.

Should registrations be granted with conditions attached?

85The Tribunal has the statutory discretion under s. 9(5) of the Act to consider each appellant’s circumstances and determine whether the public interest requires outright revocation of registration or whether the purpose of the Act can be adequately protected through granting registration with conditions. The Tribunal owes no deference to the Registrar’s position of seeking refusal of registration.

86The Act has two broad purposes: first, to provide protection to consumers; and second, to promote professionalism amongst dealers and salespeople within the automobile industry.

87Factors which may justify registration with conditions will include, among others: that the appellant has accepted responsibility for his past conduct; that he has taken steps to ensure the conduct will not occur again; that there are safeguards which may be implemented that can prevent recurrence such as supervision or reporting requirements; or that there are some other conditions which will provide assurance that the appellant’s conduct will not be repeated.

88In the present case, the Registrar submits there is no evidence before the Tribunal that indicates that there are conditions which may be imposed which will allow the appellants to satisfy the consumer protection purposes of the Act.

89I find that the Registrar has met its onus of demonstrating that it is entitled to refuse the registration of WholesaleHub as a dealer, based on its financial irresponsibility and its failure to provide information to the Registrar. I do not direct the Registrar to approve the registration of WholesaleHub as a dealer, therefore I have no conditions to impose.

90I find that the Registrar has not met its onus of demonstrating that Sinko’s financial difficulties, past behaviour and breach of conditions of registration have met the threshold that would allow the Registrar to refuse the registration of Sinko as a salesperson. I find that the Registrar has not established that there is a nexus between Sinko’s past and future behaviour that would put future motor vehicle consumers at risk.

91Under s. 15 of the Regulation, the prescribed restriction on the time to reapply for registration, for a person whose registration is refused under s. 12(a) of the Act is two years.

92Neither party proposed potential conditions of Sinko’s registration as a motor vehicle salesperson. In balancing the Registrar’s mandate to protect consumers and to promote professionalism amongst dealers and salespeople within the industry, I order that the following conditions be attached to Sinko’s registration as a motor vehicle salesperson:

1. Sinko agrees not to apply to be a motor vehicle dealer for a period of two years following the Tribunal’s Order.

2. Sinko will provide the Registrar a written update on the status of the collections by June 1, 2026.

CONCLUSION

93I conclude that the Registrar has satisfied its burden of proving the following factors that disentitle WholesaleHub to registration as a motor vehicle dealer:

1. WholesaleHub cannot reasonably be expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of business; and

2. WholesaleHub failed to comply with a request made by the Registrar.

94I conclude that the appropriate remedy is refusal of registration of WholesaleHub as a motor vehicle dealer, and not registration with conditions.

95I conclude that the Registrar has not satisfied its burden of proving the following factors that would disentitle Sinko to registration as a motor vehicle salesperson:

1. That Sinko cannot reasonably be expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of business as a salesperson;

2. That Sinko’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty; and

3. That Sinko is in breach of a condition of registration.

96I conclude the appropriate remedy is approval of registration of Sinko as a motor vehicle salesperson with conditions.

ORDER

97I confirm the Registrar’s proposal to refuse the registration of WholesaleHub as a motor vehicle dealer.

98I direct the Registrar to carry out its proposal in relation to the refusal of the registration of WholesaleHub as a motor vehicle dealer.

99I deny the Registrar’s proposal and refuse the registration of Sinko as a motor vehicle salesperson.

100I direct the Registrar to approve the registration of Sinko as motor vehicle salesperson with the following conditions:

1. Sinko agrees not to apply to be a motor vehicle dealer for a period of two years following this Order.

2. Sinko will provide the Registrar a written update on the status of the collections by June 1, 2026