HEARING FILE NUMBER: H-22-02-002
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
DATE OF DECISION: June 8, 2022
COMPLAINANT: The Vehicle Sales Authority of BC (the โVSAโ)
LICENSEE/UNLICENSED PERSON: Traveland RV Supercentre Langley (Dealer License #9588) Adam Moore (Salesperson License #122264) collectively (the โRespondentsโ)
INTRODUCTION:
On May 9, 2022, the VSA filed a Hearing Notice with allegations against the Respondents. On April 13, 2022, a Response was filed along with a request by the Respondents that the hearing in this matter be conducted orally.
ISSUES:
In their Hearing Notice, the VSA allege that the Respondents sold a 2015 Open Range RV (the โRVโ) to consumers and misrepresented the overall legal length of the RV and therefore have contravened section 22 of the Motor Vehicle Act Regulation and section 4 of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
In their Response, the Respondents allege that in 2015, at the time of the sale of the RV, they did not have knowledge of the legal length for this type of motor vehicle and were not in a position to inform the consumers, therefore not contravening any legislation.
The Respondents requested an oral hearing to which the VSA disagreed was necessary.
On April 28, 2022, in a Letter of Direction, then Acting Registrar Hunter outlined that pursuant to Rule 30.4(2) of the Registrarโs Rules of Practice and Procedures, (the โRegistrarโs Rulesโ) a party requesting an oral hearing must provide written reasons along with any evidence in support of those reasons for the request, and the Registrar will consider the factors in Rule 30.4(1) of the Registrarโs Rules in determining whether to hold an oral hearing or not.
The parties were directed by Registrar Hunter to provide their submissions and supporting evidence on why an oral hearing should or should not be conducted.
OUTCOME
On June 8, 2022, after all submissions and supporting evidence had been filed, newly appointed Registrar, Registrar Affleck ruled that the Respondents did not provide any evidence to support their request for an oral hearing. Registrar Affleck also noted and agreed with the submissions of the VSA that in accordance with Rule 30 of the Registrarโs Rules, this matter is not complex and that although there may be some disagreement on the evidence among the parties, that it does not justify ordering an oral hearing. The VSA does not anticipate seeking licence revocation.
