Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17175/MVDA and 17179 MVDA
In the matter of two appeals from a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration under section 9 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sch. B (the “Act”), and two Immediate Temporary Suspension Orders issued under section 10 of the Act.
Between:
Baber Hussain and Baber Hussain o/a Canada Motors
Appellant
and
Registrar, Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002
Respondent
DECISION and ORDER
VICE-CHAIR:
Geneviève Painchaud
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Baber Hussain, Appellant Jonathan Gross, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Zachary Kowalsky, Counsel
Heard by Teleconference:
June 13, 2025
OVERVIEW
1On May 26, 2025, the Registrar under the Act, (the “respondent” or “Registrar”) issued a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration (“NOP”) under s. 9 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sch. B (the “Act”), and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (“ITSO”) under s. 10 of the Act to Baber Hussain in respect of his registration as motor vehicle salesperson, and to Baber Hussain o/a Canada Motors (“Canada Motors”) with respect to his registration as a motor vehicle dealer.
2Baber Hussain (the “appellant”) is the sole officer and director of Canada Motors.
3On May 30, 2025, the appellant appealed the two NOPs to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”).
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
Combining the appeals
4The parties submitted, on consent, that file 17175/MVDA relating to Mr. Hussain and file 17179/MVDA relating to Canada Motors should be combined for the purposes of a hearing.
5The parties submit that each matter is based on the same facts and the same witnesses and that Mr. Hussain is the sole proprietor of Canada Motors. Holding separate hearings would be a duplication of process.
6I find that the two appeals filed should be combined into one proceeding.
7Section 9.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c S.22 (the “SPPA”) stipulates that where two or more proceedings before a tribunal involve the same or similar questions of fact, law or policy, the tribunal may combine the proceedings with the consent of the parties. Clause (1)(b) of section 9.1 provides that the two or more proceedings can be heard at the same, with the consent of the parties.
8Subsection 9.1(5) stipulates that if the parties to a second-named proceeding consent, a tribunal may treat evidence that is admitted in a proceeding as if it were also admitted in another proceeding that is heard at the same time under clause (1)(b).
9Section 9.1 of the SPPA gives the Tribunal authority to combine two appeals into one proceeding. Under the circumstances, I find it is appropriate to do so.
10I agree with the parties that combining the files is most efficient as both files relate to Mr. Hussain and the same facts, and that they therefore should be combined.
Extension of the ITSO
11The respondent indicated that it is no longer seeking the ITSO of Mr. Hussain as a salesperson.
12The parties consent to extend the ITSO of Canada Motors until the conclusion of a hearing on these matters.
13Under subsection 10(3)(a) of the Act, an ITSO expires 15 days after the Tribunal receives a written request for a hearing under section 9 of the Act unless the Tribunal extends the time of expiration until the hearing is concluded. Section 10(3)(b) stipulates that the Tribunal may extend the expiration time of an ITSO if a hearing on the associated NOP has commenced within the 15-day period. Only then would the Tribunal have the authority to order an extension of the ITSOs until the hearing is concluded.
14The hearings in both NOP appeals were commenced today, within 15 days of the appellant’s request for a hearing, and the Tribunal therefore has the authority to order an extension of the ITSO pursuant to section 10(3)(b) of the Act.
15The respondent submits that the ITSO for Canada Motors was issued to protect the public interest, noting that due to the financial aspects such as the alleged unpaid warranties, unpaid liens and unpaid floor plan account, there is a risk to the public. It adds that specifically, there is a risk to the public purchasing vehicles that may have a lien imposed on them. It submits that the potential harm to consumers continues if the ITSO expires and that risk will be mitigated if it is extended.
16On the other hand, the respondent submits that such risk does not exist as much if the appellant is allowed to continue as a salesperson under the supervision of another dealer.
17The appellant consents to the extension of the ITSO for Canada Motors and submits that they are satisfied that Mr. Hussain continuing to act as a salesperson under supervision of another dealer will achieve the public protection mandate.
18With the consent of the parties, and to reduce the risk to the public in purchasing a car that may have liens imposed, I find that the ITSO for Canada Motors should be extended until the conclusion of the hearing in order to protect the public interest.
Adjournment
19The parties seek an adjournment of the hearing so that discussions may be pursued, and the appeal be prepared. They consent to proceeding to a case conference where dates and details for a hearing shall be determined.
20I allow the adjournment and order that a case conference be held.
21Rule 16.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”) stipulates that a request for an adjournment may be made orally at an adjudicative event, and the request will only be allowed in compelling circumstances where the party did not and could not have known of the circumstances giving rise to the adjournment request prior to the event.
22Rule 16.3 sets out the factors to consider in granting an adjournment request. I have considered the factors and grant the adjournment request because:
a. The file is approximately two weeks old so there was little time for the appellant to prepare for the appeal;
b. A separate request for an adjournment prior to today would have not been efficient in the circumstances, and be counter to the intent of Rule 16.2;
c. As per the appellant’s submissions, there is no urgency on his part as he can continue to act as a salesperson, and therefore his prejudice is limited;
d. The request is on consent; and
e. The adjournment will facilitate the further exchange of documents and settlement discussions prior to a case conference.
ORDERS
23The Tribunal will combine files 17175/MVDA and 17179/MVDA and consolidate them under file 17175/MVDA. Tribunal file 17179/MVDA will thereafter be closed.
24The hearing in the matter of 17179/MVDA scheduled for the afternoon of June 13, 2025 is vacated as both matters have been combined and heard at the same time.
25The ITSO in relation to Canada Motors is extended pursuant to section 10(3) of the Act until the conclusion of the hearing.
26The hearing is adjourned and will proceed with a case conference as a next step.
27The case conference will take place on one of July 21, 2025 or July 23, 2025. The Tribunal will issue a Notice of Case Conference to the parties to confirm the specific date and time.
Other Procedural Issues
28The Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules 2023 apply to this appeal, except where varied by an order of the Tribunal.
29If the parties reach an agreement on the issues in dispute prior to the scheduled case conference, they shall immediately advise the Tribunal. The appellants must then file a Notice of Withdrawal with the Tribunal and serve a copy of that Notice to the respondent. The Tribunal will thereafter cancel the case conference and close the file.
30I am not seized of this matter.
Geneviève Painchaud
Vice-Chair
Released: June 23, 2025