Vlad Bosis

The Registrar appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that imposed conditions on the respondents' motor vehicle salesperson registrations rather than revoking them.

The respondents, principals of a car dealership, had failed to supervise employees who engaged in repeated dishonest conduct.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LAT erred in principle by failing to ascribe appropriate regulatory responsibility to the respondents for the repeated misconduct and by failing to consider the overall context of the business operations.

The matter was remitted to the LAT for a fresh hearing on remedy before a different adjudicator.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant allowed an unregistered salesperson to work at his car lot, demonstrating past conduct inconsistent with carrying on business with honesty, integrity, and in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal found that the unregistered individual held himself out as a salesperson, used the appellant's receipt book, and operated vehicles with the appellant's dealer plates.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant knew or ought to have known of these activities, which resulted in consumer harm.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal and revoke the appellant's registration.

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 appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The appellants failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the individual appellant had furnished a falsified OMVIC wall certificate to an auction house and a financial institution in an attempt to pass off an unregistered business as a registered dealer.

The Tribunal concluded this past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the appellants 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 and revoke the registrations.

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 Notice of Proposal to refuse her registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a resolution and consented to the appellant's registration subject to specific conditions, including a two-year restriction on holding management or ownership roles in a dealership and a requirement to satisfy outstanding Provincial Offences Act penalties.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealership and its two directors/salespersons.

The Appellants admitted to multiple instances of failing to disclose significant previous collision damage to consumers and falsifying bills of sale after the fact.

They had previously pled guilty to provincial offences related to this conduct.

The Tribunal found that their past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal declined to order registration with conditions, noting the Appellants' failure to take responsibility and their attempts to minimize their conduct.

The Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

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

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered that the appellant's registration be suspended for three months, during which she must complete a certification course, followed by a two-year period with conditions restricting her from acting as a final signatory or holding a controlling interest in a motor vehicle dealer.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse to renew his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The appellant admitted to forging bills of sale and submitting false documents to Service Ontario to transfer two vehicles on behalf of his father, claiming he was justified due to a dispute with another dealer.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's admitted misconduct provided reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal concluded that the public interest could not be adequately protected by granting registration with conditions, as the appellant failed to accept responsibility and viewed his illegal actions as justified.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to refuse the renewal.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, to revoke their registrations.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a Consent Order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the Proposal and directed the registration of the corporate appellants subject to strict conditions, including maintaining books and records, discharging encumbrances within 10 days, prohibiting consignment trades, limiting deposits to $10,000, and providing irrevocable Letters of Credit of $30,000 each to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke her registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

She brought a motion to compel the respondent to disclose various documents forthwith and requested costs.

The Tribunal denied the motion as premature, noting that the respondent had not refused disclosure and the deadline set in a prior case conference order had not yet passed.

No costs were ordered as the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar to revoke their registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, binding the appellant to conditions including a four-year prohibition on applying to be a motor vehicle dealer or holding a management position, and requiring employment only by an approved sponsoring dealer subject to semi-annual audits.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties waived the requirement for a hearing and agreed to a Consent Order imposing conditions on the appellants' registration.

The conditions require compliance with the Act, disclosure of changes in officers or directors, and restrictions related to Garry Letichever.

Subject to these conditions, the registrations of Auto Quest Group and Yana Letichever will continue.

The appellants, a registered motor vehicle dealer and its sole director/salesperson, appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The proposal was based on the appellants' decade-long failure to accommodate inspections of their premises and records, and failure to timely notify OMVIC of a change of address.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not conduct business in accordance with the law and with integrity.

However, because the appellants were not warned of the consequences of missing inspections until the very end, the Tribunal substituted the revocation with an immediate, indefinite suspension until the appellants produce their records to the Registrar's satisfaction.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Registrar argued the appellant's financial position and past conduct disentitled him to registration.

The Tribunal found the appellant's financial position was sufficient for his modest business plan.

However, the Tribunal found the appellant's past conduct, which included two bankruptcies and unpaid customers from a previous dealership, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar's Notice was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the appellant made false statements on his application regarding the length of a driver's licence suspension and failed to disclose pending criminal charges.

Furthermore, the appellant's belligerent and inappropriate conduct toward OMVIC staff during the application process demonstrated ungovernability.

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

The appellant applied to be registered as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the registration due to the appellant's lengthy drug-related criminal record, which included convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possessing proceeds of crime.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal but conceded that his application could not succeed if his criminal convictions were upheld on appeal.

Following the Ontario Court of Appeal's dismissal of his criminal appeal, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to deny the registration.

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

The Registrar alleged that the appellants failed to disclose material information about the accident histories of vehicles to consumers, as evidenced by consumer complaints and OMVIC inspections.

The Tribunal found that the appellants engaged in a pattern of material non-disclosure and attempted to mislead OMVIC during its investigation.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, and directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal and revoke their registrations.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registrations as a motor vehicle salesperson and dealer.

In a previous decision, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to produce requested documents or withdraw his appeal.

The appellant failed to comply and reaffirmed his intention not to disclose the documents.

The Registrar brought a motion for a final order.

The Tribunal granted the motion and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to deny the registrations.

The appellant applied for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson and dealer.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the registrations on the grounds that the appellant made false statements regarding outstanding collection actions and failed to provide requested financial and corporate information.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did not make a false statement, as he was unaware of the minor collection actions.

However, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to comply with the Registrar's reasonable requests for information under s. 6(1.1) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

Rather than refusing the registrations outright, the Tribunal deferred its final decision to allow the appellant six weeks to provide the requested information or withdraw his applications.