Amerato et al. v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act

Amerato et al. v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act [Indexed as: Amerato v. Ontario (Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act)]

77 O.R. (3d) 241

[2005] O.J. No. 3713

Docket: C43000

Court of Appeal for Ontario,

Feldman, Gillese and LaForme JJ.A.

September 8, 2005

Administrative law -- Boards and tribunals -- Procedure -- Hearing -- Section 7(2) of Motor Vehicle Dealers Act giving registrants absolute right to require hearing where Registrar issues notice of proposal to revoke registration -- Registrants requesting hearing but entering into settlement with Registrar before hearing took place -- Terms of settlement becoming part of consent order issued by Licence Appeal Tribunal -- Consent order stating that Registrar was directed to carry out proposal if registrants breached terms of order -- Consent order concluding proceedings initiated by proposal -- Waiver in consent order amounting to waiver of future hearing -- Waiver of future hearing impermissible as matter of law -- Registrar required to issue new proposal and to give registrants right to request hearing where registrants allegedly breached terms of consent order -- Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.42, s. 7.

Section 7(1) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act provides that if the Registrar proposes to revoke a registered car dealer's registration, the registrant must be served with notice of the proposal together with written reasons for it. By virtue of s. 7(2) of the Act, the notice must state that the registrant is entitled to a hearing by the Licence Appeal Tribunal. The respondents were car dealers registered under the Act. In 2002, they were served with a Notice of Proposal under s. 7(1) and requested a hearing. Before the hearing took place, they reached a settlement with the Registrar, the terms of which were made part of a consent order issued by the Tribunal. The consent order stated that the proceedings were "concluded and disposed of without a hearing on the basis of the terms set out" in the settlement. Paragraph 24 of the consent order stated that the respondents acknowledged that if they breached any of the terms and conditions set out in the order, the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal. In 2004, the respondents allegedly breached the consent order and the Registrar purported to revoke their registrations without a hearing. The respondents' application for judicial review was granted on the basis that para. 24 of the consent order amounted to a waiver of any prospective