Court File and Parties
CITATION: Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 v. 2613273 Ontario Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 1823
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 635/24
DATE: 20250326
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: REGISTRAR, MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS ACT, 2002, Appellant
AND
2631273 ONTARIO INC. o/a 2ND CHANCE AUTO SALES, CHARLES CADMAN and BOBBY WILKINSON, Respondents
BEFORE: M.D. FAIETA J.
COUNSEL: Vlad Bosis and Rishi Nageshar, for the Appellant/Responding Party No one appearing for the Respondents Sabrina Fiacco, for the Moving Party/Proposed Intervenor, Licence Appeal Tribunal
HEARD: In writing
FAIETA J.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) seeks leave to intervene on this appeal pursuant to Rules 13.02 and 13.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the following terms:
(a) The LAT may file a factum not exceeding 30 pages in length, excluding schedules.
(b) The LAT may make oral submissions of up to 15 minutes, or such time as permitted by the panel of the Court hearing the appeal.
(c) The LAT shall not seek costs nor shall costs be awarded against it.
[2] The appellant Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 opposes this motion, and the respondents take no position. For the reasons that follow, this motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
[3] The appellant Registrar issued notices under s. 9 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Schedule B (“the Act”) stating its intention to revoke the respondents’ registration as motor vehicle salespersons and motor vehicle dealership, pursuant to s. 6(1)(a)(ii) and s. 6(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. The Registrar sought revocation on the grounds that the past conduct of the respondents Cadman and Wilkinson, who were the officers and general managers of the respondent corporate dealership, afforded reasonable grounds for the belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.
[4] At the respondents’ request, a hearing was held before the Licence Appeal Tribunal. Pursuant to s. 9(5) of the Act, the LAT has the authority to “… direct the registrar to carry out the registrar’s proposal or substitute its opinion for that of the registrar and the Tribunal may attach conditions to its order or to a registration”.
[5] On May 28, 2024, the LAT Adjudicator, Rebecca Hines, found that the Registrar had established that Cadman’s and Wilkinson’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for the belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and act with honesty and integrity. However, the LAT directed the Registrar not to revoke their registrations as it found that the public interest could be adequately protected by attaching terms and conditions to Cadman and Wilkinson’s registrations, including a requirement that they each hire a compliance manager certified with the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (“OMVIC”).
[6] On September 18, 2024, Adjudicator Hines dismissed the Registrar’s request for reconsideration.
[7] On this appeal, the Registrar submits:
(a) The LAT erred in finding that the registrations should not be revoked despite having found that the registrant’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for the belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and act with honesty and integrity;
(b) The scope of OMVIC’s investigation was an irrelevant consideration to determining whether the registrant’s registration should be revoked.
(c) One of the grounds on which the LAT’s decision not to revoke registrants’ registration was that Cadman and Wilkinson had an unblemished history. However the LAT, in its Reconsideration Decision, acknowledged that it had erred in making this finding.
(d) The LAT erred in concluding that the public interest could be adequately protected with terms and conditions being imposed on the registrants and erred in failing to impose any terms and conditions on the dealer.
[8] In its Factum, the LAT states:
The appellant filed an appeal to the Divisional Court from the LAT’s decisions on the grounds that the LAT considered irrelevant or erroneous factors to rationalize its conclusion that the registrations of the respondents should not be revoked.
In the circumstances, the LAT seeks leave to intervene in the appeal as a friend of the Court to provide the Court with submissions concerning:
The statutory and procedural context of the LAT’s decision;
The statutory appeal clause in s. 11 of the LAT Act; and
The applicable standard of review, particularly as it applies to the LAT’s discretionary decisions.
The LAT’s draft factum is included in its Motion Record. The LAT will not take a position on the merits of its decision or the outcome of the appeal. Rather, the LAT’s limited submissions will assist the Court to achieve a fully informed adjudication of this appeal without compromising tribunal impartiality.
[9] The Registrar opposes this motion for the following reasons:
(a) in this case, factors to consider when determining if a tribunal should intervene in an appeal of its own decision weigh in favour of limiting the LAT’s participation;
(b) the nature of this appeal is not one where the Divisional Court would benefit from the LAT’s intervention as amicus curiae; and
(c) the LAT’s draft intervention factum makes submissions that are either unnecessary because the same subject matter has already been addressed by the Registrar in her submissions, unhelpful because they concern subject matter that is not in issue or is within the expertise of the Divisional Court or improper because the submissions of a tribunal intervening in an appeal of its own decisions should not defend the decisions under appeal.
ANALYSIS
[10] Rules 13.02 and 13.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure state:
13.02 Any person may, with leave of a judge or at the invitation of the presiding judge or associate judge, and without becoming a party to the proceeding, intervene as a friend of the court for the purpose of rendering assistance to the court by way of argument.
13.03 (1) Leave to intervene in the Divisional Court as an added party or as a friend of the court may be granted by a panel of the court, the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice or a judge designated by either of them.
[11] Whether leave to intervene as a friend of the court should be granted turns on "… the nature of the case, the issues which arise and the likelihood of the applicant being able to make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal without causing injustice to the immediate parties": Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd., 1990 6886 (ON CA), [1990] O.J. No. 1378, at para. 10; Fair Voting BC v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 ONCA 619, at para. 9.
[12] Further, whether a proposed intervenor can make a “useful contribution” turns on “… whether they will advance different and valuable insights and perspectives that will actually further the Court’s determination of the matter.”: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ishaq, 2015 FCA 151, at para. 9; Fair Voting BC, at para. 12.
[13] In deciding whether to allow a tribunal to intervene as a friend of the court on an appeal from its own decision, the court is required to balance the need for fully informed adjudication against the importance of maintaining tribunal impartiality: Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation Inc, 2015 SCC 44, at para. 57. The following factors should be considered:
(1) If an appeal or review were to be otherwise unopposed, a reviewing court may benefit by exercising its discretion to grant tribunal standing.
(2) If there are other parties available to oppose an appeal or review, and those parties have the necessary knowledge and expertise to fully make and respond to arguments on appeal or review, tribunal standing may be less important in ensuring just outcomes.
(3) Whether the tribunal adjudicates individual conflicts between two adversarial parties, or whether it instead serves a policy-making, regulatory or investigative role, or acts on behalf of the public interest, bears on the degree to which impartiality concerns are raised. Such concerns may weigh more heavily where the tribunal served an adjudicatory function in the proceeding that is the subject of the appeal, while a proceeding in which the tribunal adopts a more regulatory role may not raise such concerns: see Ontario (Energy Board), at para. 59.
[14] This appeal is opposed. The parties appear to have the knowledge and expertise to make and respond to arguments on appeal or review. On the other hand, having read the LAT’s draft factum, I dismiss the Registrar’s suggestion that it amounts to a defence of the decisions under appeal or that it in any way strays into the merits. Rather, I find that the LAT’s draft factum provides a more nuanced and fuller analysis of the applicable standard of review. Given that LAT is taking no position on the merits of this appeal, the impartiality concerns expressed by the Registrar are avoided. I find that the LAT will make a useful contribution to the resolution of this appeal. Accordingly, the LAT is granted leave to intervene on the terms that it has proposed. As requested by the LAT, there shall be no costs of this motion.
M.D. Faieta J.
RELEASED: March 26, 2025