COURT FILE NO.: 639/02
DATE: 20030320
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
O'DRISCOLL, ARCHIE CAMPBELL AND LANE JJ.
B E T W E E N:
TAGHI VAHID SHAHIDI o/a GTA AUTO
Applicant (Appellant)
- and -
REGISTRAR, MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS ACT
Respondent (Respondent on Appeal)
Counsel: Simon P. Valleau, for the Appellant Aviva R. Harari, for the Respondent
HEARD: March 20, 2003
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ARCHIE CAMPBELL J.: (Orally)
[1] The proposed "fresh" evidence is not relevant to the question, whether the dealer disclosed to purchasers and noted in the journal the required information from the documents by which the dealer acquired ownership.
[2] Even on the basis of the Registrar's May 7, 2002 proposal which included in paragraphs 7 and 9, references to misrepresentation of actual damage, the issue was on the table from the beginning. The dealer chose not to have the inspections conducted before the hearing which took place on August 23, 2002, over three months after the proposal.
[3] The "fresh" evidence was readily available at the time of the hearing.
[4] The test for fresh evidence under Sengmueller v. Sengmueller (1994), 17 O.R. (3d) 208 per McKinlay J.A. at p. 210-211 includes the requirement that the evidence will likely be conclusive of an issue on the appeal. In light of the findings of the tribunal in respect of non-disclosure of information on the documents by which the dealer acquired the vehicles, evidence as to actual damage to the vehicles could not have affected the result.
[5] The proposed evidence is therefore rejected.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 20, 2003
Date of Release: March 24, 2003
COURT FILE NO.: 639/02
DATE: 20030320
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
O'DRISCOLL, ARCHIE CAMPBELL AND LANE JJ.
B E T W E E N:
TAGHI VAHID SHAHIDI o/a GTA AUTO
Applicant (Appellant)
- and -
REGISTRAR, MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS ACT
Respondent (Respondent on Appeal)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ARCHIE CAMPBELL J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 20, 2003
Date of Release: March 24, 2003