Key Takeaways
- The MVDA test looks at past conduct affording reasonable grounds for belief about future lawful, honest conduct (s. 6(1)(a)(ii)).
- The child care Act uses a similar test for applicants, employees, officers, directors and controlling persons (CCEYA, s. 23(1)(b)).
- The test looks forward. Evidence of change matters.
- Disclose fully. Concealment is often treated more seriously than the original history.
The Statutory Test
Under the MVDA, an applicant is not entitled to registration if their past conduct, or that of an interested person, affords reasonable grounds for belief that they will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty (s. 6(1)(a)(ii)). For corporations, the conduct of officers, directors and interested persons is considered (s. 6(1)(d)(iii)). The Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014 uses a similar test (s. 23(1)(b)).
Building Your Evidence
- Full, candid disclosure of the history.
- Context: age, circumstances, time elapsed.
- Rehabilitation: completed sentences, restitution, treatment, training.
- Character and employer references.
- Proposed conditions, such as supervision, that address the concern.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does an old conviction mean automatic refusal?
Not under these tests, which look at whether past conduct gives reasonable grounds for concern about the future.
Can conditions make the difference?
Often. Registrars and tribunals can approve registration with conditions (MVDA, ss. 8(2), 9(5)).
Sources
Statutory references are to the provisions listed below, as consolidated on e-Laws when this page was prepared.
- Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, ss. 6, 8, 9 — Checked November 10, 2026.
- Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014, s. 23 — Checked November 10, 2026.