Court Puts the Brakes on Car Salesman’s Appeal

The appellant’s bid to regain his motor vehicle salesperson registration was denied by the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council due to past misconduct, including inappropriate messages to co-workers and a customer. Upon review, the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) found his explanations unreliable and ruled that he lacked the integrity required under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act. Upon appeal, the appellant argued ineffective assistance of counsel and that he had been denied procedural unfairness. His appeal was dismissed, and he was ordered to pay costs.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – License Appeal Tribunal – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness – Professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming

Veerasingam v. Ontario (Licence Appeal Tribunal), [2025] O.J. No. 236, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 21, 2025, R.A. Lococo, W.M. Matheson and S. O’Brien JJ.

The appellant appealed the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s (LAT) refusal of his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson due to allegations of misconduct. He had been registered under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. B (MVDA) from 2010 until June 2022, when his registration was terminated following the end of his employment. Seeking to re-register with a different dealer, the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC) issued a Notice of Proposal refusing his registration based on incidents of sexual harassment in 2021 and 2022. The appellant applied to review the Notice of Proposal of the OMVIC before the LAT.

The LAT considered whether the appellant’s past conduct precluded registration and whether public interest could be protected with conditions. His conduct included sending inappropriate messages and sexually explicit content to former co-workers and a customer. The appellant admitted to sending explicit material to a former co-worker but claimed it was accidental. He also denied responsibility for suggestive Instagram messages, attributing them to a hacker or intoxication.

The LAT Vice-Chair found his explanations implausible and his evidence unreliable, concluding that his conduct raised reasonable grounds to believe he would not conduct business with integrity and honesty. The LAT further determined that registration with conditions would not sufficiently protect the public and refused his registration. The LAT decision required that the Registrar of the OMVIC carry out its proposal to refuse the registration of the appellant as a motor vehicle salesperson under the MVDA. The appellant’s request for reconsideration was dismissed.

On appeal, the appellant argued he had been denied procedural fairness, including ineffective assistance of counsel and that there had been improper admission of hearsay evidence. The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal’s decision reasonable and procedurally fair. The Court also found that the appellant had not properly introduced evidence to establish there had been ineffective assistance of counsel or hearsay introduced in the LAT proceeding. The appellant was ordered to pay costs to OMVIC.

This case was digested by Roshni Veerapen of Harper Grey LLP and first published in the LexisNexis® Harper Grey Administrative Law Netletter and the Harper Grey Administrative Law Newsletter.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact her directly at [email protected].