Rutumi Tank

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Registrar argued the appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible due to a recent consumer proposal and outstanding tax debts, which also constituted a breach of a prior registration condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's financial mismanagement and breach of conditions posed a risk to consumers.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to refuse registration and declined to impose conditions.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle salesperson and dealership due to non-compliance with garage register requirements, late remittance of warranty payments, failure to remit HST, and breach of agreed terms and conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the Registrar established reasonable grounds for belief that the appellants would not carry on business in accordance with the law, revocation was too severe a penalty given the appellants' 30-year unblemished record and subsequent remedial actions.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the revocation and instead imposed strict terms and conditions on the registrations.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (ITSO) issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

At the hearing, the appellants requested an adjournment to retain counsel and obtain a Farsi interpreter, and opposed the extension of the ITSOs.

The Tribunal found it lacked authority to extend the timeframe for considering the ITSO extension under the Act.

However, because the appellants' failure to secure an interpreter delayed the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal extended the ITSOs until the conclusion of the hearing pursuant to s. 10(4)(b) of the Act.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded $5,550.00 for unreasonably withheld non-earner benefits.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator made an error of law in applying the formula for calculating the special award.

The adjudicator agreed, finding that the formula was incorrectly applied by adding interest after calculating 50% of the withheld benefits, rather than calculating 50% of the total of withheld benefits plus interest.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration and varied the special award to $8,560.08.