An Ontario tribunal has upheld a decision to refuse registration to motor vehicle salesperson — citing his past conduct that included yelling profanities at a dealership’s head of HR and false statements on registration applications as grounds for concern about his ability to operate with integrity and honesty.
Vice-Chair Avril A. Farlam of the Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the Notice of Proposal (NOP) issued on April 25, 2024, effectively denying M.M.’s registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.
The Registrar’s refusal was based on two main grounds: that M.M.’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty and that he made false statements in his applications for registration.
False statements on applications
Between 2021 and 2022, M.M. submitted seven applications for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson. In each application, he answered “no” to questions asking whether he had ever been charged with an offence under any law, including charges that were pending, stayed, withdrawn, or resulted in a finding of not guilty.
However, evidence presented by the Registrar showed that M.M. had been arrested and charged on several occasions during that period:
Sept. 11, 2020: Arrested for intimate partner violence and criminal harassment against M.A., charged under sections 264(3) and 162.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada. On Aug. 11, 2022, he pleaded guilty to one count, received a conditional discharge, and was placed on probation for one year.
Jan. 27, 2021: Arrested and charged with failure to comply with an undertaking not to communicate with M.A., under section 145(4)(a) of the Criminal Code. This charge was withdrawn on Aug. 11, 2022.
April 14, 2023: Arrested for criminal harassment against M.S., under section 264(1) of the Criminal Code. This charge was withdrawn on April 16, 2024, but a peace bond was issued, and M.M. remains subject to its conditions.
March 22, 2022: Charged with breach of undertaking regarding M.T., under section 145(4)(a) of the Criminal Code.
Despite these charges, M.M. consistently answered “no” to the questions regarding charges on his applications. Vice-Chair Farlam found that “the appellant falsely answered these questions” and that he did so knowingly.
“The questions clearly refer to ‘charges’ and the appellant answered that there had been none when he had to have known of the charges laid, having been arrested on several occasions by the police, having hired a lawyer to represent him on the charges, and having had to appear in court himself to plead guilty,” the decision stated.
M.M. argued that he misunderstood the questions, believing they referred only to convictions, not charges. The Vice-Chair did not accept this explanation, noting that M.M. has a postgraduate degree in economics and is seeking registration in a regulated industry that requires understanding contracts and other written documents.
“My task in applying this ground is to determine if the appellant made a false statement knowingly,” Vice-Chair Farlam wrote. “I do not accept as credible his explanations for these repeated false statements, and find that he made them knowingly.”
Failure to disclose collections and court orders
In his December 4, 2023, application, M.M. also answered “no” to a question asking whether there were any active or unsatisfied judgements, collections, or court orders against him, including family support payments in arrears.
Evidence showed that as early as June 2022, M.M. had collections owing for child support through the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) amounting to approximately $25,000, which remained unpaid.
While M.M. denied being indebted for child support, the Vice-Chair found that “this does not relieve him of the obligation to answer the question on the application truthfully. The question clearly refers to ‘collections…including family support payments’ and I find the appellant should have answered it truthfully, albeit with whatever explanation he felt appropriate.”
Past conduct at previous dealerships
The Registrar also presented evidence of M.M.’s past conduct at various motor vehicle dealerships, including aggressive behaviour, use of racial slurs, and making sexually explicit statements about employees.
Wallace Chevrolet: After his employment was terminated in January 2021 for mishandling customer transactions, M.M. used racial slurs against employees and refused to leave the dealership until police were called. C.S., the general sales manager, testified that M.M. called him a “Paki” and that the police had to intervene.
401 Auto: In November 2021, after being terminated, M.M. exhibited aggressive behaviour and used profane language towards employees — including shouting foul language at the dealership’s head of human resources. P.T., the associate vice-president, testified that M.M. refused to leave, demanded money, and challenged him to a physical confrontation, prompting P.T. to call the police.
Raceway Chrysler: In 2023, M.M. made sexually explicit statements to J.N., an employee at the dealership where he used to work. After applying for employment and not being hired, he sent her messages that she described as “vulgar and unprofessional.” J.N. testified that “she doesn’t appreciate receiving sexual comments addressed to her in the workplace but was surprised at how vulgar this communication was.”
Vice-Chair Farlam found the testimonies of these witnesses credible, stating that “the conduct as described by the witnesses indicates a clear pattern of concerning behaviour lacking in integrity and honesty. It took place in relation to the workplace, impacting coworkers, and in areas of the dealership premises accessible to customers.”
Tribunal’s conclusions
The Vice-Chair concluded that M.M.’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.
“I find that falsely answering ‘no’ to these questions on his applications for registration constitutes both past conduct of the appellant affording reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty, and also establishes that the appellant has made a false statement in an application for registration,” the decision stated.
No conditions imposed
M.M. suggested that he would abide by any conditions attached to his registration. However, the Vice-Chair determined that imposing conditions would not be appropriate or effective.
“Nothing in the evidence led me to believe that further monitoring or supervision of the appellant, or any other conditions attached to a licence would be appropriate or effective in ensuring the appellant will not continue to make false statements and will not engage in the pattern of conduct which I have found above,” Vice-Chair Farlam wrote.
Although M.M. stated that he would now abide by conditions imposed, the Vice-Chair noted that “this simply amounts to now saying that he will comply with obligations he has had all along but failed or refused to comply with.”
Conclusion
As a result of these findings, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the NOP, effectively refusing M.M.’s registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.
“I find that the Registrar has established that the past conduct of the appellant affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty, and that the appellant has made a false statement in an application for registration. As a result, the appellant is disentitled to registration,” the decision concluded.
For more information, see Malandruccolo v Registrar,Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2024 CanLII 115423 (ON LAT).
