LAT confirms refusal of All Gear Auto registration after dealer kept selling unregistered

On April 9, 2026, the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld OMVIC’s proposal to refuse renewal of registration for 1000470565 Ontario Inc. o/a All Gear Auto, finding that the dealer had breached registration conditions and that its sole director, Hassan Al-Mehmodi, had continued to advertise and sell motor vehicles after the registration expired. The decision is published on CanLII as 2026 CanLII 34317 (ON LAT).

How the case got to the Tribunal

The dealer was first registered in 2023 and was required to renew annually. It did not apply to renew before its registration expired on August 30, 2025. A re-application was submitted on September 8, 2025. OMVIC issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the renewal on October 18, 2025, citing both pre-expiry compliance failures and post-expiry trading.

OMVIC’s evidence rested on three pillars.

Disclosure on the Bill of Sale

A Books and Records Inspection on February 25, 2025 reviewed deal files against Carfax reports for the same VINs. The inspector found that the appellant either failed to disclose, or only partially disclosed, material facts to consumers in writing on the Bill of Sale, contrary to s. 30(1) of the MVDA and section 42 of O. Reg. 333/08 (specifically paragraphs 19, 21, 22 and 23 of that section, covering damage repair costs over $3,000, total-loss declarations, out-of-province registration, and salvage/rebuilt status).

A satisfied repeat customer, Mohamad El Tawil, testified for the appellant about his 2018 Chevy Camaro purchase. The Tribunal placed little weight on that testimony. At paragraph [43] the adjudicator noted that “verbal disclosure, even if provided, is inadequate” because the Act and the Terms and Conditions of Registration require all material facts to be disclosed on the Bill of Sale, in writing. Mr. El Tawil’s deal file had a single line (“Has accident more than $3,000”) on the Bill of Sale; the Carfax for that VIN showed five accidents over $3,000, two of them over $10,000.

A “free” warranty with no backing

The appellant offered a no-cost in-house extended warranty on multiple vehicles. The warranty was neither underwritten by a licensed insurer nor backed by an irrevocable letter of credit, which is what s. 47(1) of O. Reg. 333/08 requires for any dealer-supplied extended warranty: $100,000 when the dealer is the seller of the warranty, $500,000 otherwise. As the inspector explained, that backing is what protects the consumer if the dealer refuses to honour the warranty or goes out of business. Without it, the customer has no recourse. Separately, after the inspection OMVIC required this specific dealer to post a $30,000 letter of credit as a registration condition; that case-specific figure is not the statutory floor.

After the inspection, OMVIC required the appellant to sign updated terms and conditions and to post a $30,000 LOC by July 5, 2025. Neither happened. The appellant testified that he tried to negotiate the LOC requirement by phone; the Tribunal rejected that account at paragraph [45] because OMVIC’s call records contain no log of any such contact.

Trading after registration expired

This was the heaviest piece of the decision. After the August 30, 2025 expiry, the appellant continued to advertise vehicles on Facebook Marketplace and on its own website. On September 11, 2025, OMVIC investigator Todd Pearce posed as a buyer and discussed a potential sale of an advertised 2008 Ford F-150 with a man at the dealership who used the anglicized name “Mike”, later confirmed to be Hassan Al-Mehmodi. On September 17, 2025, Investigator Pearce gave Hassan Al-Mehmodi a verbal warning that the appellant could not sell vehicles while unregistered.

Three vehicles were sold under the dealer’s Registered Identification Number between October 29 and November 5, 2025. A second OMVIC investigator visited the lot on November 20, 2025 posing as a consumer and again dealt with the same individual. On December 2, 2025, Karsen Rau bought a 2013 Ford Edge from the appellant. Multiple warning lights, including Check Engine, ABS, and Service AdvanceTrac, came on as soon as she drove off the lot. The Bill of Sale stated that the vehicle had been “fully serviced and safetied”; no safety certificate was ever provided. Eventually her texts were ignored. She filed a consumer complaint with OMVIC on December 30, 2025.

On February 3, 2026, OMVIC charged the appellant and Hassan Al-Mehmodi with two counts of the provincial offence of acting as an unregistered dealer under s. 4(1)(a) of the Act.

What the Tribunal decided

At paragraph [40] the adjudicator found that the appellant had breached conditions of registration and was disentitled under s. 6(1)(f) of the MVDA. At paragraph [47] the adjudicator separately found, on the lower “reason to believe” standard, that Hassan Al-Mehmodi’s past conduct was disqualifying under s. 6(1)(d)(iii) of the Act.

Hassan Al-Mehmodi denied selling vehicles after expiry, suggested that brothers who resemble him had used the dealer’s documents without his knowledge, and pointed to “a lot of impersonation and fraud”. The Tribunal rejected those denials, preferring the testimony of Investigator Pearce and Ms. Rau, who both placed Hassan Al-Mehmodi at the dealership address dealing directly with them after the expiry.

At paragraph [56] the adjudicator declined to substitute terms and conditions because “the appellant has exhibited a disregard for the law and OMVIC’s regulatory and enforcement authority and [I am not] satisfied that additional conditions will result in a course correction.” The decision can be appealed to the Divisional Court.

What to learn

• Renew on time. Registration is the licence to operate. If it lapses, every advertisement and every sale is a provincial offence under s. 4(1)(a), and OMVIC compensation is unavailable to the buyer.
• Material facts go on the Bill of Sale, in writing. Verbal disclosure, screenshots of the auction Carfax, and good intentions are not a substitute. The Carfax that informs the disclosure also has to be retained in the deal file under section 52 of O. Reg. 333/08.
• A “free” warranty isn’t free if it isn’t backed. s. 47(1) requires every dealer-extended warranty to be either underwritten by a licensed insurer or supported by a Letter of Credit on file with the Compensation Fund. Telling the customer the dealer will cover repairs out of pocket does not meet the regulation.