Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appellant’s registration as a motor vehicle salesperson was denied due to findings of sexual harassment and dishonest conduct.

• LAT found compelling evidence that the appellant lacked the honesty and integrity required for registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

• Tribunal accepted testimony from employer and customer despite the absence of key complainants, relying on admissions by the appellant.

• Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected due to lack of proper evidentiary foundation.

• Use of hearsay evidence and substituted witnesses was found procedurally fair under tribunal rules.

• Divisional Court upheld LAT’s decision, emphasizing credibility findings and public interest considerations.

Background and alleged misconduct

Beashema Veerasingam had been registered as a motor vehicle salesperson in Ontario from 2010 until his employment ended in June 2022. He later applied to be re-registered with a new dealership. The Registrar of the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC) proposed to refuse his registration under section 8 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, based on past conduct that allegedly demonstrated a lack of integrity and honesty, contrary to section 6(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.

Three separate incidents formed the basis of the Registrar’s refusal: (1) sending a sexually explicit video and a series of text messages to a former co-worker (GP); (2) sending inappropriate Instagram messages to a female customer shortly after a vehicle sale; and (3) sending sexually explicit messages to another former co-worker (NK). The appellant was granted a hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) to contest the proposed refusal.

Proceedings before the Licence Appeal Tribunal

At the LAT hearing, the Registrar called three witnesses: a dealership manager, a male customer (Beharry), and an OMVIC representative. Key complainants (GP and NK) were not called, allegedly due to lack of response to summonses. The appellant admitted sending the video and messages but claimed they were either sent by mistake or by a third-party harasser who had accessed his accounts.

The Vice-Chair of the LAT found that the appellant’s explanations were implausible and that he lacked credibility. The Tribunal concluded that he had intentionally sent inappropriate messages and then lied about the incidents. The Vice-Chair found that his conduct, including misrepresentations and dishonest explanations, demonstrated a pattern incompatible with the standards of honesty and integrity expected of a licensed salesperson. The LAT refused the appellant’s registration and dismissed his request for reconsideration.

Divisional Court appeal and arguments raised

The appellant appealed the LAT decision to the Divisional Court, arguing that he was denied procedural fairness. He raised several issues, including ineffective assistance of his paralegal representative, the admission of hearsay evidence without the testimony of key complainants, and the LAT’s acceptance of testimony from an OMVIC representative who replaced the original investigator.

The Court held that the appellant failed to meet the legal test for ineffective assistance of counsel, as he did not provide sufficient evidence or bring a motion to admit fresh evidence. The hearsay objections were rejected because the LAT is permitted to receive hearsay evidence under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and the key evidence was largely based on the appellant’s own admissions. The Court also ruled that the substituted witness did not compromise procedural fairness and that the LAT had discretion to accept such evidence, especially given the limited role the testimony played in the decision.

Outcome and conclusion

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness or legal error in the LAT’s reasoning. The Court emphasized the Tribunal’s detailed credibility assessment and the public interest in maintaining high standards in the motor vehicle sales industry. Costs of $15,000 were awarded to OMVIC. The refusal to register the appellant was upheld, and the LAT’s decision remained in force.