You’re offline. This is a read only version of the page.
Justin Kyle Plosz
Issues:On March 19, 2020 Justin Kyle Plosz applied for a reconsideration of the Registrar’s Decision of October 22, 2019, in which the Registrar denied Mr. Plosz a salesperson licence and refused to accept an application from him for three years from the date of the decision. The October 22, 2019 decision was based on the following facts:
(a) Mr. Plosz’s past criminal convictions,
(b) Mr. Plosz’s then criminal charges,
(c) Mr. Plosz’s administrative review for a salesperson licence in Alberta, and
(d) Mr. Plosz’s failure to advise the Authority of key information to be considered in relation to his suitability as a licensee.
Mr. Plosz’s application for a reconsideration was accompanied by the submission of new evidence, in which he had been reissued a conditional salesperson licence in Alberta, as of March 2020, and his criminal charges had been stayed.
Legislative Considerations:
In order to submit an application for reconsideration of a Registrar’s Decision, that allows the Registrar to cancel or vary a previous decision, the following must apply:
(a) The request for reconsideration must occur within 30 days of the aggrieved person receiving notice of the decision or the reasons for the decision, whichever is latest. This time limit may be abridged in certain circumstances and where an injustice
would otherwise occur if it was not abridged.
(b) The request for reconsideration must be accompanied by new evidence that:
(i) Did not exist at the time of the original decision, or
(ii) Did exist at the time of the original decision but could not be discovered with reasonable diligence in searching for that evidence, and
(iii) The new evidence must be substantial and material that it may affect the original decision.
• The Registrar found that the application for a reconsideration was submitted well outside of the legislatively mandated 30-day threshold from the date of the original decision.
• The Registrar found that there is ample evidence to show Mr. Plosz was aware of that decision by at least November 22, 2019, which was well after the issuance of the Government’s order suspending limitation periods at the discretion of tribunals due
to COVID-19.
• The Registrar found that Mr. Plosz submitted new evidence that did not exist at the time of the original decision of October 22, 2019.
• The Registrar found that Mr. Plosz still:
(a) Has a prior criminal record,
(b) Had been refused a salesperson licence in Alberta,
(c) Was under review by the Alberta Motor Vehicle Industry Council (“AMVIC”) at the time he initially applied for a licence in British Columbia, and
(d) Failed to advise the Authority of that administrative review and to cooperate with the Authority’s review of his application.
The Registrar emphasized point (d) and noted that the Registrar’s original refusal was because these facts indicated Mr. Plosz would not be governable and abide by the Code of Conduct. The Registrar also noted that in the original refusal decision, it was not necessary to consider the then pending criminal charges in refusing Mr. Plosz a licence in B.C.
The Registrar denied Mr. Plosz’s request for reconsideration in this matter, which may not be further reconsidered.
Cases considered/referred to:
• Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, 1989 CanLII 41 (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 848 (Supreme Court of Canada)
• Fryer v. Motor Vehicle Sales Authority of British Columbia, 2015 BCSC 279 (BC Supreme Court)
• Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act v Vernon, 2016 ONSC 304 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court)
Legislation considered/referred to:
• Code of Conduct (Motor Dealer Act Regulation, section 33)
• Motor Dealer Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 316, sections 7, 26
Click here for the full decision (PDF)
