Sarah Aouchiche

The Appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Registrar alleged the Appellants operated as unregistered dealers ('curbsiders'), failed to provide vehicle history disclosures to vulnerable consumers, and forged signatures on sales documents.

The Tribunal found the Appellants' evidence lacked credibility and that they had engaged in serious derelictions of their responsibilities under the Act, including selling vehicles without disclosure and forging a colleague's signature.

The Tribunal concluded the Appellants' past conduct provided reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

On the second day of the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar not to carry out the proposal and to renew the appellant's registration subject to specified conditions, including restrictions on signing authority and dealership control.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The appellant's previous registration was revoked in 2012 due to multiple instances of dishonesty.

The Tribunal found that while the prescribed time to reapply had passed, the appellant failed to demonstrate that material circumstances had changed.

The evidence showed the appellant made false statements on recent applications to OMVIC and RECO, and failed to repay debts owed to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The Registrar proposed to deny the appellant's application for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The appellant appealed but failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had over $23,600 in retail sales tax arrears from a previous dealership, had diverted trust funds, and had made false statements on his registration applications regarding collection actions.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible, lacked honesty and integrity, and ordered the Registrar to carry out its proposal to deny registration.

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

The refusal was based on the appellant's past conduct, which included criminal convictions for break and enter with intent to commit assault with a weapon and mischief, for which he was still on probation, as well as a prior conviction for acting as an unregistered salesperson.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had not demonstrated a sufficient period of positive, unsupervised conduct.

Considering the seriousness of the criminal offences, his tendency to minimize his involvement, and his previous violation of the Act, the Tribunal concluded that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

Following the conclusion of a hearing, the Appellants brought a motion seeking leave to file post-hearing written submissions.

The Appellants argued that their counsel had rushed through oral submissions due to the late hour and omitted responses to certain evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, noting that both parties were explicitly offered the choice between oral and written submissions, chose oral submissions, and were assured they would not be rushed.

The Tribunal found that the request to file additional reasons was an afterthought.