Approval Capital consented to its ITSO extension in November 2025, then lost both registrations in August 2026 without a hearing

On August 6, 2026, OMVIC’s enforcement table recorded two registrations as revoked on the no-hearing path: SAS Automotive Solutions Inc. o/a Approval Capital, a motor vehicle dealer, and Nouman Khan, its officer and person in charge, registered as a salesperson. The one document OMVIC attached to the rows dates from November 18, 2025, when Licence Appeal Tribunal Member Rebecca Hines released a decision and order (2025 ONLAT MVDA 17935) extending the Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (ITSO) against both appellants until the hearing on the Registrar’s Notice of Proposal concluded. Both sides had asked for the extension. The hearing on the merits never produced a decision.

A fifteen-day clock, stopped by agreement

The decision’s recital gives October 24, 2024 as the date the Registrar issued the Notice of Proposal to revoke both registrations, together with the ITSO under s. 10. It gives November 3, 2025 as the date of the appeal to the Tribunal ([1] to [2]), and leaves the year-long gap between the two unexplained. Under s. 10(3), an ITSO expires 15 days after the Tribunal receives the hearing request unless a hearing has commenced within that window and the Tribunal extends the order to the end of it. Counted from the November 3 filing, the order was due to expire on November 18, 2025. The videoconference hearing opened on November 17, the day before, and the parties agreed it would deal with nothing but the extension ([4] to [5]).

The Member set out the Registrar’s onus in the usual terms: it must show that the conduct relied on occurred, that it forms a reasonable basis for the proposal, and that the public interest calls for the suspension to continue while the appeal is decided ([11]). None of that was tested, because the appellants consented to the extension. “Since both parties agree on the extension of the ITSO I find no reason to interfere,” the Member wrote ([12] to [13]). She had already ordered the continuation orally at the end of the sitting ([6]).

The grounds that were never argued

The issues the parties agreed would wait for a resumed hearing show what the Registrar’s case was ([7] to [8]). Against the corporation, the ground was financial: that having regard to its financial position it could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of its business, s. 6(1)(d)(i). Against Khan, the ground was past conduct as officer and person in charge, said to afford reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, and the decision cites s. 6(1)(a)(ii) and s. 6(1)(d)(iii) together for both appellants on that ground, an oddity of the decision’s own drafting since the first clause applies to individuals and the second to corporations. The last of the four issues was remedy under s. 9(5): carry out the proposal, substitute the Tribunal’s opinion, or attach conditions. Neither the conduct nor the finances behind the grounds are described anywhere in the order.

A dealership for sale

One line in the procedural orders points to what else was happening with the business. The case conference was to let the parties disclose documents and “receive any new information on the progress of the intended purchase and sale of the dealership,” then discuss settlement ([14]). Two-hour conference slots were offered on December 1, 8 and 9, 2025 ([15]). The order also spelled out the exit: if the parties settled before the conference, the appellants were to file a Notice of Withdrawal and the Tribunal would close the file ([19]).

Section 6(3) makes a registration non-transferable, so whether a sale could carry the registration with it depended on the form of the deal, which the order leaves open.

What the enforcement table shows

The Tribunal table on OMVIC’s site lists both appellants under proposal type “Immediate Suspension/Revoke” with the disposition “Revoke - No Hearing,” a disposition date of August 6, 2026, and no appeal to the Divisional Court. The table does not say whether the appellants withdrew, settled, or simply did not proceed, and no decision on the merits was released. Nine months separate the consented extension from the revocation.

Montero Auto Center is the site’s other ITSO file, and it ended in the same disposition after a contested extension hearing that made findings on the record. Approval Capital’s extension was consented to, so the four-page order of November 18, 2025 makes no finding about either appellant. For this file, OMVIC’s table holds that order and the two August rows, and no document in between.