) ) RAMANATHAN THANGARAJAH v. UNITY-A-AUTOMOTIVE, 2013 ONSC 4369

CITATION : Thangarajah and Unity-A-Automotive v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2013 ONSC 4369 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 113/12 DATE: 20130624 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SWINTON, SACHS AND GRACE JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) RAMANATHAN THANGARAJAH and UNITY-A-AUTOMOTIVE Applicants (Appellants) – and – REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES Respondent )) )) )) )) )))) Symon Zucker , for the Applicants (Appellants) Douglas W.

Lee , for the Respondent ) ) HEARD at Toronto: June 24, 2013 SWINTON J. (ORALLY) [ 1 ] The appellants appeal from a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated March 15, 2012 (as amended March 22, 2012), which directed the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to carry out a Notice of Proposal to revoke Mr.

Thangarajah’s Type 6 motor vehicle inspection station mechanic registration and Unity-A-Automotive Inc.’s motor vehicle inspection station licence Type 6 registration. [ 2 ] The appellants argue that the Tribunal erred in two ways: first, by ignoring the decision of Vice-Chair Sanford, in that it did not consider the weight of certain allegations that were not proceeded with in 2007; second, by unduly interfering in the conduct of the hearing and thus denying procedural fairness. [ 3 ] The standard of review applicable to this appeal is reasonableness, except to the extent that the appellants raise issues of procedural fairness (see Fakhri (c.o.b.

Crown Auto Repair and Used Car Sales) v. Ontario (Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, Registrar) , [2009] O.J. No. 5001 (Div. Ct.) at para. 11 ). [ 4 ] The Sanford decision stated that the governing legislation looks at the appellant’s past conduct and left the question of weight to be given the historical allegations to the Tribunal hearing the evidence.

As stated in the Sanford decision and other decisions of the Tribunal, the test for revocation directs the Tribunal to examine the entire past conduct of the appellants to determine if there are reasonable grounds to believe that they will not carry on business in the future honestly, competently, and in accordance with the law. [ 5 ] Aside from the historical allegations, there were 22 additional allegations of malfeasance by the appellants between 2007 and 2009. The evidence regarding these allegations took up the majority of the hearing and was the focus of the analysis in the reasons.

In the end, these newer allegations were not seriously challenged by the appellant.

[6] In our view, the Tribunal, in deciding whether to direct the Director to carry out the Notice of Proposal to revoke, reasonablyconsidered the entire course of conduct of the appellants and concluded that the appellants’ licences should be revoked. The Tribunalreasonably concluded that the licences should not be subject to conditions, given that the appellants had not taken past warningsseriously and their misconduct jeopardized public safety. [7] With respect to the Tribunal interventions during the hearing, the vast majority of the interventions were to clarify technicalevidence.

The few other examples did not result in any interference with the fairness of the hearing, nor demonstrate that the Tribunalapproached its task with a closed mind, especially when the interventions are evaluated in the context of the whole seven day hearing. Inthis regard, there is a strong presumption that a tribunal member will act fairly and impartially, absent evidence to the contrary. Theonus of proving bias is a high one, and the appellants have not established any reasonable apprehension of bias here (see Ontario(Commissioner, Provincial Police) v. MacDonald, 2009 ONCA 805 , [2009] O.J.

No. 4834 (C.A.) at para. 34). [8] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. COSTS [9] I have endorsed the Appeal Book, “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered in court today. Costs to therespondent fixed at $4,000 all inclusive.” SWINTON J. SACHS J. GRACE J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 24, 2013 Date of Release: June 27, 2013 CITATION: Thangarajah and Unity-A-Automotive v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2013 ONSC 4369 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 113/12 DATE: 20130624 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURTSWINTON, SACHS AND GRACE JJ. BETWEEN:

RAMANATHAN THANGARAJAH and UNITY-A- AUTOMOTIVE Applicants (Appellants) – and – REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES Respondent ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SWINTON J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 24, 2013 Date of Release: June 27, 2013