DATE: 2005/06/22

DOCKET: M32629 (C43000)

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

PIETRO AMERATO, PIETRO WHOLESALE AUTO LTD. and NORTH YORK AUTO AUCTIONS, INC. Applicants (Respondents on Appeal) - and - REGISTRAR, MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS ACT, Respondent (Appellant on Appeal)

BEFORE:

MCMURTRY, C.J.O.

COUNSEL:

Peter Balasubramanian

for the Moving Party/Intervenor, Tarion Warranty Corporation

Anthony Bak

for the Respondents/Respondents in Appeal, Pietro Amerato, Pietro Wholesale Auto Ltd. and North York Auto Auctions Inc.

Larry A. Banack

for the Respondents/Appellants in Appeal, Registrar, Motor Vehicles Act

HEARD:

March 31, 2005

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] This is a motion brought by Tarion Warranty Corporation ("Tarion") seeking to intervene in this appeal as a party or as a friend of the court.

[2] Tarion is a non-profit corporation that is designated by the government to administer the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act (ONHWP). As part of its functions under the Act it administers the mandatory licensing regime for all new home builders in Ontario. In respect of the issues under this appeal, it appears that the regulatory regime that governs Tarion is in all material essentials identical to the regime applicable to the Registrar, Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant in this appeal. From the materials filed, it appears that Tarion enters into settlements with its registrants, similar to those entered into by the appellant, that include terms waiving the right to appeal to the License Appeal Tribunal. The validity of including such a term in these settlements is the subject matter of this appeal. Accordingly, the decision in this appeal may well have an impact on the operation of the licensing regime under the ONHWP Act, and indeed may affect up to 20 similar licensing regimes applicable to other regulated activities.

[3] Despite the able argument of Mr. Balasubramanian on behalf of the proposed intervenor, I am not persuaded to make an order permitting Tarion to intervene in the appeal.

[4] The Attorney General of Ontario has intervened in this appeal, as is his right under Section 9(4) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act. Although the Attorney General may intervene in any case, such interventions are rare and reflect that an appeal raises broader, systemic or public policy issues, as is the case here. The position taken by the Attorney General is that the practice of regulators entering into settlements, such as the one that is the subject matter of the appeal, is permitted and authorized by the statutory and regulatory regimes applicable to such regulators. In this regard, the Attorney General's intervention, in essence, defends the practice, not only of the appellant but also of any other regulator, including Tarion, governed by one of the many parallel regimes the government has enacted to regulate other activities. Were it not for the intervention of the Attorney General, my conclusion might have been different. Accordingly the application is dismissed.

[5] They will be no order as to costs.