Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Timeliness and perfection of the appeal under Rules 61.09 and 61.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, given a ten-month delay in perfecting the appeal.
• Whether, as a matter of proper rule interpretation, a motion to dismiss for delay can or should be brought after an appeal has already been perfected.
• The extent to which delay caused primarily by counsel’s inaction, rather than the appellants’ lack of intent, should justify dismissal of the appeal.
• The arguable merits of the appeal from the Licence Appeal Tribunal decision, particularly regarding alleged errors about repairs to a BMW and the fitness of the penalty of full revocation.
• Competing claims of prejudice and alleged abusive conduct, including the Registrar’s assertions of an “intimidation campaign” and unlicensed trading, and whether those are tied to delay in perfection.
• The appropriate treatment of costs on the motion, including the fixing (but reserving) of $20,000 in costs to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

Background and regulatory context
This case arises in the context of Ontario’s regulated motor vehicle sales industry under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002. Platinum Cars Inc. and its principal, Shaun Jalili, were registered motor vehicle dealers whose conduct came under scrutiny by the Registrar, the official responsible for administering the Act. The Registrar alleged that Platinum and Mr. Jalili had breached conditions of their registration and sold vehicles with defects without disclosing those defects to buyers. The matter first proceeded before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), which is the specialized tribunal tasked with reviewing such regulatory decisions. On February 16, 2024, the LAT upheld the Registrar’s decision to revoke the appellants’ registrations under the Act for breaches of registration conditions and for selling cars with undisclosed defects. The LAT’s decision cited Jalili and Platinum Cars Inc. v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, 2024 CanLII 13104 (ON LAT). This meant that Platinum and Mr. Jalili faced the most serious regulatory sanction available – loss of their registrations and the ability to operate lawfully as dealers in Ontario.

Procedural history leading to the appeal
Shortly after the LAT decision, on February 20, 2024, the appellants commenced an appeal to the Ontario Divisional Court. They also sought to preserve their position pending the outcome of that appeal by bringing a motion for a stay of the LAT decision. On April 9, 2024, Justice Leiper of the Divisional Court dismissed the appellants’ motion for a stay, in Platinum Cars Inc. v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, 2024 ONSC 2077 (Div. Ct.). The appellants then attempted to set aside that refusal of a stay. On June 6, 2024, a panel of the Divisional Court dismissed the appellants’ further motion under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside Justice Leiper’s order and to grant a stay pending appeal, in Platinum Cars Ltd. v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, 2024 ONSC 3225. As a result of these interim rulings, the revocation of the registrations remained in effect while the main appeal moved forward.

Timeline and perfection of the appeal
Procedurally, the key dates for the appeal are important to understanding the motion decided in this endorsement. The appellants received all necessary hearing transcripts on April 27, 2024. Under Rule 61.09(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, where a transcript is required, an appellant must perfect an appeal within 60 days after receiving notice that the evidence has been transcribed. On that basis, the appeal ought to have been perfected by June 26, 2024. In reality, the appeal was not perfected until May 6, 2025, resulting in approximately a ten-month delay beyond the prescribed period. Despite this delay, the appeal was ultimately perfected months before the motion now under consideration was heard. On June 27, 2025, after the appeal was perfected, the Registrar brought the present motion, seeking to dismiss the appeal for delay under Rule 61.13(1), to dismiss the appeal for failure to pay prior cost awards under Rule 57.03(2), and to dismiss the appellants’ motion to adduce fresh evidence. A later case conference on September 19, 2025 set the appeal down to be heard on February 18, 2026 and scheduled the Registrar’s motion for December 3, 2025.

Governing legal framework for delay in appeals
The Divisional Court’s analysis focuses on the interaction of the appeal perfection rules and the discretionary power to dismiss for delay. Rule 61.09(1) requires appellants to perfect their appeals within defined timelines, but, as explained by Myers J. in Pollard Windows Inc. v. 1736106 Ontario Inc., 2019 ONSC 4859 (Div. Ct.), this rule does not create an absolute deadline; instead, it confers on respondents the right to move for dismissal for delay after the period has passed. Rule 61.13(1)(b) then allows a respondent, on ten days’ notice, to move to have an appeal dismissed where the appellant has not perfected the appeal within the time prescribed by Rule 61.09(1). The court notes that a “sensible reading” of Rule 61.13(1)(b), consistent with the interpretive principles in Rule 1.04, suggests such a motion should be brought only before an appeal has been perfected. The judge even comments that the Civil Rules Committee should consider amending Rule 61.13 to make this timing limitation explicit. However, because the parties did not argue this interpretive point in detail and the motion could be resolved on established principles, the court decides the motion by applying the usual test for dismissal of an appeal for delay.

The test for dismissal for delay and intention to appeal
The governing test comes from Sheth v. Randhawa, 2022 ONCA 89, where Simmons J.A. set out a multi-factor framework. The court must ask whether “the justice of the case” warrants dismissal for delay, considering: (i) whether the appellant formed an intention to appeal within the appeal period; (ii) the length of the delay; (iii) the explanation for the delay; (iv) the merits of the proposed appeal; and (v) prejudice to the responding party. Applying the first factor, the court finds that the appellants clearly formed and maintained an intention to appeal. They filed their notice of appeal within the appeal period, instructed counsel to perfect the appeal, and followed up regularly. The delay, in the judge’s view, is largely attributable to the inaction and difficulties within their legal team rather than to any abandonment of the appeal by the appellants themselves.

Nature and explanation of the delay
On the second factor, the court accepts that there was a significant delay of roughly ten months in perfecting the appeal, counting from the June 26, 2024 perfection deadline to the eventual perfection on May 6, 2025. As to explanation, the appellants advance several reasons: their lawyer was occupied with urgent issues in the aftermath of the failed stay motions, including release of vehicle ownerships and negotiations with the lender; an associate who had been working on the appeal left practice and was working only limited hours before that departure; a new lawyer had to review the extensive record and get up to speed; and a newly identified repair invoice emerged, which required additional analysis and contributed to delay. The Registrar effectively concedes that some portion of the delay stems from counsel’s inadvertence from July 8, 2024 to January 6, 2025, but argues that no adequate explanation is given for subsequent months. The appellants’ counsel, Mr. Zucker, also points out that the Registrar did not raise concerns about timing earlier and that, in mid-February 2025, he advised the Registrar that perfection was expected by the end of that month, though that deadline was not met and new counsel had to be brought in to complete the factum after the associate’s departure.

Merits of the proposed appeal
On the merits factor, the Registrar maintains that the appeal is weak, describing it as an attempt to re-characterize findings of fact as questions of law. One central ground of appeal concerns the LAT Vice-Chair’s finding about repairs to a BMW that was sold. At paragraph 78 of the LAT decision, the Vice-Chair found, based on the Registrar’s submissions, that there was no evidence the issue with the BMW had been repaired before it was sold to the buyer. The appellants argue that they were prejudiced by factually incorrect submissions and that there was in fact a repair invoice within the Registrar’s productions showing the repair had been done, which, they say, undermines the serious misconduct finding that they knowingly sold a vehicle with a serious defect. The Divisional Court acknowledges that the strength of this liability ground remains “questionable,” indicating that this is not a plainly strong argument but also not so devoid of merit as to justify termination of the appeal at the preliminary stage. Separately, the appellants challenge the penalty imposed by the LAT as “clearly unfit,” claiming the decision failed to take into account any mitigating circumstances and did not properly assess the full spectrum of possible penalties short of complete revocation. The Registrar maintains that the sanction was within the reasonable range given the findings of misconduct.

Alleged prejudice and broader conduct issues
The Registrar argues that the ten-month delay prejudices both the Registrar and the administration of justice. It asserts that the appellants have engaged in a “harassment and intimidation campaign” following the LAT decision and contends that they continue to trade in automobiles in Ontario despite no longer being licensed. The appellants deny these allegations and say they are not connected to the delay in perfection. The court refers again to Pollard Windows to underscore that a respondent facing prejudice from delay has multiple procedural tools at its disposal short of seeking dismissal of the appeal: moving for security for costs, attempting to lift any stay, seeking directions or a timetable, or seeking case management. The Registrar did not employ any of these measures in the months leading up to perfection. The court considers this inaction as supporting the conclusion that there is no meaningful prejudice tied specifically to the delay in perfecting the appeal. Ultimately, the judge finds that the Registrar has not demonstrated prejudice arising from delay that would justify the drastic remedy of dismissing the appeal.

Absence of insurance policy terms or contractual clauses
Unlike many civil appeals involving coverage disputes, this case does not turn on the interpretation of an insurance policy or private contractual clauses. Instead, it revolves around statutory and regulatory provisions: the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, the Courts of Justice Act, and the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rules 61.09, 61.13 and the general interpretive Rule 1.04. The decision briefly suggests that the Civil Rules Committee consider amending Rule 61.13 to clarify that motions to dismiss for delay should only be brought before perfection. However, there are no insurance policy terms or similar contractual clauses at issue that require detailed construction in this endorsement.

Disposition of the motion and treatment of costs
In the conclusion of the endorsement, the court holds that the “justice of this case” does not justify dismissal of the appeal based on the delay in perfection. The Registrar’s motion to dismiss the appeal for delay is therefore dismissed, and the appellants’ motion to admit fresh evidence is left for determination by the panel hearing the appeal itself. On costs, the parties took an unusual position: they agreed that the quantum of costs relating to this motion should be $20,000, but they did not agree whether any such costs should actually be awarded. The judge resolves this by fixing the costs of the motion at $20,000 but reserving the question of entitlement. That issue—who, if anyone, must actually pay that amount—will be decided by the panel that ultimately hears the appeal. As a result, the immediate successful party on this motion is the appellants, Platinum Cars Inc. and Shaun Jalili, because the Registrar’s attempt to have their appeal dismissed has failed. However, no definitive monetary award is made in their favour at this stage. The only figure fixed is $20,000 in costs for the motion, and that amount is reserved for later allocation, meaning the exact monetary outcome in favour of the successful party cannot yet be determined.