VSA

Registrar's Decision

Registrar's Decision 18-06-003

FILE NUMBER: 18-06-003

IN THE MATTER OF THE MOTOR DEALER ACT, R.S.B.C. 1996 C.316AND THE BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, S.B.C. 2004, C.2

COMPLAINANTS: Amy Bouchard and Ingrid Munro

LICENSEE/UNLICENSED PERSON: N.W. Auto Depot Ltd. (Dealer# 10578) & Westminster Motors Ltd. (Dealer # 40469) & Gordon Valente (SP#101221)

DATE OF DECISION: January 30, 2021

INTRODUCTION

On November 1, 2019, acting Registrar Hunter issued a decision noting N.W. Auto Depot Ltd. and Mr. Valente:

  1. failed to provide a consumer a written consignment agreement in breach of the Consignment Sales Regulation,
  2. committed a deceptive act or practice by misrepresenting the selling price of the subject consigned vehicle to the consumer and failed to payout the proceeds of sale as required by the Consignment Sales Regulation, and
  3. failed to make some of the required declarations on the consumer’s purchase agreement as required by the Motor Dealer Act Regulation.

On November 5, 2020, acting Registrar Hunter issued a decision regarding the appropriate compliance action to address the licensee’s breaches of the legislation. These included a ban on applying to be registered as a motor dealer for a period of time, prohibiting Mr. Valente from conducting consignment sales for a period of time, an administrative penalty was ordered, an order to compensate a consumer was made, as well as orders to abide by the legislation were made.

On November 22, 2020, Mr. Valente requested that the November 5, 2020, decision be reconsidered.

ISSUES

  1. Does Mr. Valente’s reconsideration decision meet the minimum legislative requirements?
  2. If so, should the November 5, 2020 decision be reconsidered.

KEY FACTUAL AND LEGAL FINDINGS

The reconsideration provisions of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act envision a two-step process. First, an assessment is made of the evidence and the request itself to see if it meets the legislative requirements. If there is no new evidence which is substantial and material and could affect the original decision, then the legislation will not allow the Registrar to cancel or vary the initial decision. If the request for reconsideration meets these requirements, then the next step is to proceed with the actual reconsideration.

One exception to this rule is where the principles noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Chandler decision are engaged. These principles were not applicable to this case.

Acting Registrar Hunter noted Mr. Valente did not provide any new evidence on his request for reconsideration. Mr. Valente’s request for reconsideration made submissions on the evidence that was already before Acting Registrar Hunter. As there was no new evidence being presented by Mr. Valente, the statutory requirements for a reconsideration were not met.

OUTCOME

Acting Registrar Hunter dismissed Mr. Valente’s request for reconsideration.

LEGISLATION CITED

Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c.2, sub-section 182(2)

CASE CITED

Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848 (Supreme Court of Canada)

Click here for the full decision (PDF)