|
MVDA - Case Examples. Platinum Cars Inc. v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002
In Platinum Cars Inc. v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court denied a motion for a stay pending appeal, here where the appellant appealed a LAT order "directing the Respondent Registrar to carry out a Notice of Proposal" to revoke both a car dealer and motor vehicle salesperson MVDA registration.
Here the court illustrates the operation of the MVDA 'Notice of Proposal' regime, related procedures and a LAT appeal:Background
[3] The Appellant Shaun Jalili was a motor vehicle salesperson registered under the MVDA, 2002 or the “Act”. He is also the sole officer and director of the Appellant, Platinum Cars Inc.
[4] On September 14, 2022, the Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal (“NOP”) to revoke Mr. Jalili’s registration and to revoke Platinum Cars Inc.’s registration as a dealer. To summarize, the grounds for revocation were failure to comply with conditions of registration, failure to meet disclosure obligations and the alleged dishonest conduct of Mr. Jalili.
[5] The Appellants appealed the NOP to the Licence Appeal Tribunal. The Tribunal held an eleven-day hearing, beginning with a motion to stay for abuse of process brought by the Appellants. The Tribunal dismissed the stay motion, adjourned the hearing and resumed the hearing on the merits several months later. During the appeal proceedings below, the Appellants continued to carry on business pursuant to their registrations.
[6] The background to the 2023 appeal arises from a prior consent order made by the Registrar concerning the Appellants’ registrations. On January 7, 2020, the Registrar issued a NOP to revoke the registrations of Platinum and Mr. Jalili. The Appellants appealed that NOP. Prior to the scheduled hearing before the Tribunal, the parties resolved the issues. On consent the Registrar placed conditions on the Appellants’ registrations. The Tribunal issued the order on May 12, 2021.
[7] The relevant provisions of the 2020 consent order are found in the Tribunal’s reasons of February 16, 2024:21. Jalili agreed to, among others, the following conditions:
a) Not trade in motor vehicles until he had provided proof to the Registrar that he had successfully completed the “Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC) Certification Course” with a mark of at least 80%,
b) Successfully complete the “Automotive Laws and Ethics” (Laws1009) offered by Georgian College, and to achieve a mark of at least 80%,
c) Successfully complete within 6 months both an anger-management course and a dispute-resolution skills course approved by the Registrar,
d) Be responsible for ensuring Platinum Cars’ compliance with the conditions of registration.
22. Platinum Cars agreed to, among others, the following conditions:
a) Provide a specific set of headlight parts to a former customer for a 2015 Mercedes-Benz (VIN: WDDHF6HB0FB162434) purchased from Platinum Cars,
b) Inform the Registrar in writing of any complaints it receives from its customers related to a trade of a motor vehicle and which have not been resolved to the customer’s satisfaction within 30 days,
c) Disclose in writing on its bills of sale all material facts about the vehicles it sells or leases to its customers, including any facts which would reasonably affect a customer’s decision to purchase or lease the vehicle,
d) Research the history of all of the vehicles that it sells or leases in order to ensure that all material facts are disclosed, and
e) Resolve complaints in such a way as to bring it into compliance with the requirements of the Act, the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, the Sale of Goods Act and its conditions of registration ....
Penalty Findings
[19] The Tribunal took into account the nature of the breaches, the Appellants’ history of prior misconduct and found serious issues with the Applicants’ governability and integrity. These portions of the reasons read:[138] (sic) In my view, the breaches of conditions and the conduct of Platinum and Jalili affords grounds for belief that they will not act in accordance with the law, integrity and honesty are serious. They are even more serious in the context of the registration history of Platinum and Jalili.
[129] The conditions breached by the appellants were imposed in the course of a Tribunal proceeding in respect of a Registrar’s Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellants’ registrations. Previously, the appellants were fined a combined total of $24,500 by the Discipline Committee for breaches of advertising requirements under the Act. In 2018 there was Notice of Proposal to suspend registrations of Platinum and Jalili.
[130] Jalili has consistently failed to recognize the authority of the Registrar as a regulator. He failed to bring himself into compliance with the educational requirements of his conditions of registration even when he knew he was in default of those conditions. He continued to trade in motor vehicles despite the clear condition that he does not do so until he brought himself into compliance with the conditions.
[131] Platinum failed to disclose on a bill of sale an engine defect which resulted in a repair estimate of almost $12,000 within two months of the sale in breach of a condition of registration. It also failed to notify the Registrar in writing of unresolved complaints and did not comply with a condition for the provision of certain parts to a consumer without making any determination as to whether the Registrar found its excuse to be satisfactory.
[132] In my view, registration along with the imposition of conditions would not be sufficient in the circumstances. The appellants have demonstrated that they cannot be relied on to comply with conditions and that they are likely to simply decide themselves which conditions to comply with and which ones need not be complied with.
[133] Further, the conduct upon which my finding that there are reasonable grounds for belief that Platinum and Jalili will not carry on business in accordance with law, integrity and honesty arises largely out of their failure to comply with their obligations under the Act. The requirement that defects be disclosed to consumers is an important requirement under the Act and plays a central part in the protection of consumers. The failure of Platinum and Jalili to comply with this basic obligation under the Act makes it even more unlikely that conditions imposed by this Tribunal would be honored.
[134] I find that the appellants have presented no basis in evidence for the Tribunal to conclude that registration with conditions would be appropriate or would adequately protect the public.
|
