Rishi Nageshar

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision regarding the revocation of a motor vehicle dealer's registration.

The appellant Registrar opposed the motion, arguing the LAT's intervention would defend its own decision and compromise impartiality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the LAT's proposed factum provided a nuanced analysis of the standard of review without taking a position on the merits, thereby offering a useful contribution without raising impartiality concerns.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the Registrar's refusal to register him as a motor vehicle salesperson due to past misconduct involving sexually explicit and inappropriate messages sent to a former co-worker and a customer.

On appeal, the appellant argued procedural unfairness, alleging ineffective assistance by his paralegal and improper admission of hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish the factual basis for ineffective assistance of counsel and that the tribunal's admission of hearsay evidence, including the appellant's own admissions against interest, did not render the hearing unfair.

The appellant sought a stay pending appeal of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The appellant's motion materials claimed he would suffer irreparable harm by losing his existing licence and livelihood.

However, the court found that the appellant had not been licensed for over two years and was applying for a new registration.

Because a stay would merely maintain the status quo of him being unlicensed, he could not establish irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed, and the court noted serious concerns about the appellant's counsel misrepresenting facts in the motion materials.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, a construction company and its principal, for breach of a home renovation contract.

The defendants were noted in default after failing to properly file a notice of intent to defend.

The court found that the defendants breached the contract, provided limited labour and materials, and misappropriated funds, resulting in unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff was awarded $78,636.97 in damages for overpayments and remedial costs, plus partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence and dismiss their counterclaim for failing to comply with previous court orders regarding undertakings and appointing legal counsel for the corporate defendant.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the defendants had not shown a wanton disregard for the rules, noting that the COVID-19 pandemic and financial hardship caused the delays.

Instead, the court granted lesser remedies, including allowing the individual defendant to represent the corporate defendant and ordering third-party disclosure to satisfy the outstanding undertakings.