Registrar's Decision

Registrar's Decision

File Number: 07-70285A/07-70263A/08-70631A/08-70997A

In the matter of THE MOTOR DEALER ACT R.S.B.C.1996 C.316

Complainant: REGISTRAR

Licensee/Unlicensed person:



  • This decision is ancillary to the decisions of August 6, 2010 in:
  • Pirvulescu v. Parkwood Motors Ltd. (VSA File No. 07-70285);
  • Satinder, Jasvinder and Balwinder Gill v. Parkwood Motors Ltd. (VSA File No. 07-70263);
  • Anselmo v. Parkwood (VSA File No. 08-70997); and
  • Androsoff v. Parkwood (VSA File. No. 08-70631).
  • The conduct of Parkwood, Mr. Beune and Mr. Hawes were being reviewed.
  • Section 8.1(4)(b) of the Motor Dealer Act specifically states one contravention of the deceptive act or practice provisions of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act is grounds for the Registrar to cancel a motor dealer’s registration.
  • A motor dealer and a salesperson’s conduct can also be reviewed under other provisions of the Motor Dealer Act and its regulations.
  • The case law says “conduct does not require evidence of deceit or even of willful blindness. It encompasses any act or omission or course of behaviour that affords reasonable grounds to believe that the business will not be carried on in accordance with law, honesty and integrity.”
  • The Supreme Court of Canada noted that the licensing concept, in effect, deems a regulated person as knowing the law applicable to their operations and they are to be held accountable for any breaches of that law. The licensing concept also recognizes that a regulated person agrees to abide by a minimum standard of conduct and care. The minimum that could ever be expected is to know and abide by the law.


  • Parkwood was found to have breached the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act four times.
  • Parkwood represented two vehicles as roadworthy when they were not and did no vehicle inspection whatsoever on one of those vehicles. This was very serious.
  • Parkwood was found to have been deliberately deceptive, negligently deceptive and was also reckless as to the safety of a consumer in one transaction.
  • Parkwood willfully blinded an important part of its operations, its sales staff, so they could not accurately represent the vehicles they were selling.
  • Parkwood failed to advise itself of all its legal obligations up to and including during the time of these hearings.
  • Parkwood’s registration was cancelled, and an application for reinstatement would not be considered for at least 5 years.
  • Mr. Beune
  • Parkwood was a small operation and Mr. Beune was its directing mind.
  • Mr. Beune clearly orchestrated Parkwood’s conduct including willfully blinding Parkwood’s salespeople.
  • Mr. Beune personally participated in the sales involving the two vehicles found not to be roadworthy. Mr. Beune’s conduct was reckless as to a consumer’s safety during one transaction.
  • Mr. Beune’s licence was cancelled, and an application for reinstatement would not be considered for at least three years. No application would be accepted where Mr. Beune was to be in a management position or a directing mind of a motor dealer unless Mr. Beune was in good standing with the Authority for at least 2 years after any reinstatement.
  • Mr. Hawes
  • Mr. Hawes’ misrepresentations did not involve any proven issues involving consumer safety.
  • Mr. Hawes’ misrepresentations were in part due to his employer keeping information from him. However, Mr. Hawes had a choice whether to make the misrepresentation or not. He made the wrong choices.
  • A 30 day suspension of his licence coupled with the administrative penalties he is to pay should be sufficient to inform him of his legal obligations to consumers. Those obligations are separate and apart from his employer’s.
  • Mr. Hawes received a 30 day suspension of his salesperson licence.

Click here for the full decision (PDF)