Licence Appeal Tribunal
File Number: 18347/MVDA
In the matter of an appeal from a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration under section 9 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, c. 30, Sch.B (the "Act"), and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order issued under section 10 of the Act.
Between:
Marco Sinagoga & 7631901 Canada Corp. o/a Montero Auto Center Appellants
and
Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 Respondent
DECISION and ORDER
VICE-CHAIR: Kevin Kovalchuk
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Marco Sinagoga, Appellant Jonathan Gross, Counsel
For the Respondent: Maria Correia, Counsel
Held by Videoconference: March 11, 2026
OVERVIEW
1On February 24, 2026, the Registrar under the Act (the "respondent") issued a Notice of Proposal ("NOP") to Revoke Registration 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 section 10 of the Act to the appellants 7631901 Canada Corp. o/a Montero Auto Center ('Montero Auto") with respect to its registration as a motor vehicle dealer, and to Marco Sinagoga ("Sinagoga"), in respect of his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.
2The appellants appealed the NOP to the Licence Appeal Tribunal ("the Tribunal") on March 9, 2026.
3Sinagoga is a director, owner and General manager of Montero Auto.
4Under section 10(3) of the Act, an ITSO expires 15 days after the Tribunal receives a written request for a hearing, unless the Tribunal extends the time of expiration until the hearing is concluded. Subsection 10(3)(b) stipulates that the Tribunal may extend the expiration time of an ITSO if a hearing on the associated NOP has been commenced within the 15 -day period. Only then would the Tribunal have the authority to order an extension of the ITSO until the hearing is concluded.
5The evidence presented for the purposes of the extension of the ITSO is not automatically evidence for the purposes of the hearing of the NOP appeal and will have to be presented again in its entirety should the hearing of the NOP appeal proceed. Further, since determinations I must make with respect to the ITSO extension are to be based on an incomplete presentation of the evidence, my factual determinations are not binding on the adjudicator who conducts the NOP appeal.
ISSUE
6The issue to be determined is:
i. Whether the expiry date of the ITSO on the appellants' registrations should be extended until the conclusion of the hearing.
RESULT
7The expiry date of the ITSO on the appellants' registrations is extended until the conclusion of the hearing. The hearing is adjourned and will be resumed at a future date to be determined by the Tribunal. A case conference will be scheduled by the Tribunal.
ANALYSIS
Should the ITSO be extended until the hearing for the NOP is concluded?
8The Registrar bears the onus to establish that it is in the public interest that the ITSO be extended until the hearing for the NOP is concluded. To satisfy its onus, the Registrar must establish that the conduct on which it relies occurred and forms a reasonable basis for the NOP and that the nature of the conduct and the circumstances are such that it is a matter of public interest that the registration remain suspended pending the outcome of the NOP hearing.
9The respondent requests an extension of the ITSO until the hearing is concluded. It submits that the appellant presents an ongoing risk to the public.
10The appellants oppose the extension of the ITSO and ask instead that the Tribunal impose conditions on the appellants' registrations.
11At the hearing the respondent raised three broad issues which it says establish that it is in the public interest that the ITSO remain in effect until the conclusion of the hearing of