LAT grants Pourtehrani a salesperson registration with conditions after a refusal

Ontario’s Licence Appeal Tribunal turned down OMVIC’s proposal to refuse a salesperson registration in a decision released June 12, 2026, and instead let the registration through on conditions. The decision is published by CanLII as Mahmood Pourtehrani v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, 2026 CanLII 56638 (ON LAT) (the amended decision; the original was released a day earlier). It is a useful companion to the Jandu case, where the same s. 9(5) discretion produced conditions rather than revocation, and a counterpoint to Chaudry, where a refusal was upheld.

How the matter reached the Tribunal

The appellant, Ali Mahmood Pourtehrani, had his salesperson registration terminated by the Registrar on November 2, 2025. The next day a salesperson change application was submitted in his name to register him at 2684626 Ontario Ltd. operating as Smart Auto Group. On February 7, 2026 the Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse that application under s. 8 of the MVDA. An applicant can ask the Tribunal to hear the matter, which is what happened here.

OMVIC’s case rested on two grounds for disentitlement under s. 6 of the Act: that the appellant’s past conduct gave reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty (s. 6(1)(a)(ii)), and that he had made a false statement on his application (s. 6(1)(a)(iii)).

The Tribunal found both grounds met

The past-conduct ground rested on two transactions, one involving a Bentley and one a Toyota, that the appellant ran through a company that was not registered as a dealer. A Provincial Offences Court found him guilty of acting as a dealer while unregistered (s. 4(1)(a) of the MVDA), acting as a salesperson not registered to that dealer (s. 4(5)), and falsifying and furnishing false documents (s. 26 and s. 27). The adjudicator held those results gave reasonable grounds for belief about his future conduct, while noting the convictions could still be appealed. The Bentley deal had the shape of financing dressed up as a sale, with the buyer and seller in substance arranging a refinancing, a pattern that also surfaces in the Hurry Compensation Fund decision.

On the second ground, the application answered “no” to whether the applicant had ever been charged with an offence, which was false. The appellant testified he had lent his OMVIC login to his sponsor at Smart Auto, who he said submitted the application and made the error. The Tribunal found, on a balance of probabilities, that a false statement had been made on the application.

Why conditions, not refusal

Finding the grounds met does not end the matter. Under s. 9(5) of the MVDA, the Tribunal can carry out the Registrar’s proposal or substitute its own opinion, including by attaching conditions, and it owes the Registrar no deference. The adjudicator concluded conditions could adequately protect the public here for two reasons: the Registrar’s evidence was limited to transactions where the buyer and seller were essentially the same person, and of the two transactions, only one was ever the subject of a consumer complaint.

The registration was granted subject to three conditions for one year from the decision’s release:

• He cannot be the final signatory on any bill of sale, sales contract, or lease contract for a vehicle he sells or leases, or on the bill of sale for any vehicle bought for resale.
• He must tell the Registrar and his sponsoring dealer, in writing within five business days, of any finding of guilt, conviction, or pending charge under any law, and give the Registrar a copy acknowledged by the sponsoring dealer.
• He cannot transfer his registration to another dealer without the Registrar’s prior written consent.

The decision is the Tribunal’s final disposition; either side may seek review in the Divisional Court. The underlying Provincial Offences convictions may also be under appeal.

What to learn

• Meeting a ground for refusal is not the end. Even where s. 6 is established, s. 9(5) lets the Tribunal grant registration with conditions if the public can be protected another way.
• What tips the scales toward conditions. Here it was the narrow evidence (buyer and seller essentially the same person) and a single complaint. Accepted responsibility, safeguards, and supervision are the usual factors; their absence pushes toward refusal, as in Chaudry.
• Your application answers are a separate ground. A false answer about prior charges is its own basis for refusal under s. 6(1)(a)(iii), and lending out your OMVIC login does not transfer the responsibility for what is filed under your name.