Tribunals Ontario

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 18129/MVDA

In the matter of an appeal from Notice of Proposals to Revoke Registrations under section 9 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sch. B (the “Act”), and Immediate Temporary Suspension Orders issued under section 10 of the Act.

Between:

Bayline Express LTD o/a Bayline Fine Cars and Mohammad Aminzadeh Bar Fouroush and Mojgan Shadmehry

Appellants

And

Registrar, Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002

Respondent

DECISION and ORDER

VICE-CHAIR: Jeffery Campbell

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Mohammad Aminzadeh Bar Fouroush Victor O’Brien, Counsel

For the Respondent: Rutumi Tank, Counsel Vlad Bosis, Counsel

Interpreter: Cindy Huang – in the Mandarin Language

Heard by Videoconference: January 6, 2026

OVERVIEW

1On December 19, 2025, the Registrar under the Act (the “respondent”) 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. Both the NOP and the ITSO were issued to Bayline Express LTD (the “appellant Bayline”) with respect to its registration as a motor vehicle dealer and to Mohammad Aminzadeh Bar Fouroush (the “appellant Fouroush”) and Mojgan Shadmehry (the “appellant Shadmehry”) with respect to their registrations as motor vehicle salespersons.

2On December 27, 2025, the appellant Shadmehry appealed the NOP and the ITSO to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) with respect to himself and the appellant Bayline. The same day, the appellant Fouroush appealed the NOP and the ITSO with respect to himself.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Request for an adjournment

3On January 6, 2026, Victor O’Brien, counsel for the appellants for the purpose of adjourning today’s hearing, filed with the Tribunal and served on the respondent Request for an Adjournment forms for the three appellants. In the Request for an Adjournment forms and in oral submissions, Mr. O’Brien stated that the appellants require more time to retain a lawyer and for that lawyer to review the file and to prepare to argue the appeal hearing. Counsel for the appellants requested that the hearing with respect to the issue of the extension of the ITSOs be adjourned to a later date.

4Under section 10(3)(a) of the Act, if the Tribunal receives a request for a hearing under section 9 in respect of the NOP, then the companion ITSO expires 15 days after the Tribunal receives a written request for a hearing. However, 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. The Act does not otherwise provide the Tribunal authority to extend the ITSO to an interim period other than to the commencement or the conclusion of the hearing.

5Counsel for the appellants submitted that section 21 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c.22 (the “SPPA”) allows for the Tribunal to adjourn the hearing in order to ensure that the appellants are properly represented to speak to the issue of the ITSO. Section 21 of the SPPA states:

“A hearing may be adjourned from time to time by a tribunal of its own motion or where it is shown to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the adjournment is required to permit an adequate hearing to be held.”

6While I acknowledge that section 21 of the SPPA permits the Tribunal to adjourn a hearing, and although the Act itself does not prohibit such an adjournment, this provision does not address the issue of the ITSOs. When I consider section 10(3) in its entirety, I find that the extension of the ITSOs falls within the scope of the hearing of the NOP, which extension, as noted, must be determined within 15 days of the written request for a hearing. Consequently, I find that the Tribunal lacks the authority to extend the timeframe for considering the extension of the ITSOs. Accordingly, I decline the appellants’ requests to adjourn the hearing for the purpose of the extending the timeframe for the consideration of the extension of the ITSOs.

Extension of the ITSO

7I find that the ITSO should be extended pursuant to section 10(4)(b) of the Act until the conclusion of the hearing.

8The respondent requests an extension of the ITSO until the hearing is concluded.

9The appellants oppose the extension of the ITSO.

10The respondent called their first witness, Mr. Jun Xiang, who testified with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin language. Shortly after Mr. Xiang began his testimony, counsel for the appellants advised that the appellant Fouroush (who was the only individual appellant in attendance) required an interpreter in the Farsi language, as he did not understand the testimony of Mr. Xiang. Counsel for the appellants advised that they would be unable to proceed without the assistance of a Farsi interpreter.

11After the hearing was stood down in order for counsel for the appellants to enquire about obtaining an interpreter, he advised that he was unable to find an interpreter that would be prepared to attend today’s hearing. He subsequently requested an adjournment of the hearing to consider the ITSO, in order for the appellants to have sufficient time to obtain an interpreter.

12Counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellants have had adequate notice of the hearing in order to obtain an interpreter and that by being unable to continue with the hearing on today’s date, the appellant’s conduct is delaying the commencement of the hearing. Counsel for the appellants submitted that, as the appellant Fouroush has, apparently, been unable to properly understand the hearing to this point, the hearing has, for all intents and purposes, not commenced.

13Counsel for the appellants submitted that, as this hearing was scheduled within a short period of time after the NOPs and ITSOs, as well as the Notices of Appeal, the appellants have had insufficient time to obtain an interpreter. Therefore, the interests of justice and procedural fairness demand that the appellants have adequate time to obtain an interpreter.

14I note that the Notice of Hearing, which contains instructions regarding obtaining accommodations, was provided to the appellants on December 23, 2025. I also note that an Accommodation Information Sheet was forwarded to the appellants by the Tribunal via email on December 29, 2025. It is also notable that the appellants successfully completed, submitted and served their respective Notices of Appeal in the required time. However, they waited until the day of the hearing to advise that an interpreter in the Farsi language was necessary in order to continue.

15Section 10(4) of the Act states:

“Despite subsection (3), if it is satisfied that the conduct of the registrant has delayed the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal may extend the time of the expiration of the [ITSO],

(a) Until the hearing commences; and

(b) Once the hearing commences, until the hearing is concluded.”

16With respect to the “commencement of the hearing”, I am satisfied, by counsel for the appellants’ position, the appellant Fouroush has been unable to comprehend the proceedings thus far. Consequently, I find that this renders this hearing void ab initio, meaning invalid from the outset. I am satisfied that we are, in effect, at the true commencement of the hearing.

17Further, it is evident that the delay in continuing this hearing stems from the appellants’ inability or unwillingness to secure an appropriate interpreter promptly for the purpose of the hearing. I am therefore satisfied that the appellants’ conduct has caused the delay in the commencement of the hearing.

18Given the above, pursuant to s. 10(4)(b) of the Act, I order that the ITSOs be extended to the conclusion of the hearing of the NOPs.

ORDERS

19The requests to adjourn the hearing for the purpose of the extending the timeframe for the consideration of the extension of the ITSOs is denied.

20The ITSOs in relation to the appellants are extended, pursuant to section 10(4)(b) of the Act until the conclusion of the hearing.

21The hearing is adjourned and will proceed with a case conference to be scheduled by the Tribunal

22The Tribunal will issue a Notice of Case Conference to the parties to confirm the specific date and time.

Other Procedural Issues

23The Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 apply to this appeal, except where varied by an order of the Tribunal.

24If 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 and, if that happens, the Tribunal will thereafter cancel the case conference and close the file.

25Given my finding that the hearing has not commenced in light of the appellant Fouroush’s language needs, I am not seized of this matter.

Jeffery Campbell

Vice-Chair