LAT dismisses Compensation Fund claim because a loan refinancing is not a trade

On May 25, 2026, the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed Matthew Hurry’s claim against the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund. Adjudicator Michael Beauchesne found that the transaction Hurry lost money on, a January 2025 refinancing of a Jeep he already owned, was not a trade in a motor vehicle, so the gateway provision for Fund compensation, s. 79(1)(a) of O. Reg. 333/08, did not apply. The decision is published on CanLII as Hurry v. Board of Trustees, Ontario Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund, 2026 CanLII 51020 (ON LAT).

The case is the first Compensation Fund appeal on the site, and it draws a hard line that catches consumers off guard: the Fund is not a general remedy for every loss a dealer causes. Even where the Board conceded “there appears to be wrongdoing on the part of the dealer,” the claim failed because the loss did not arise from buying, selling, leasing, or exchanging the vehicle.

What happened

Hurry bought a 2019 Jeep Compass for $25,800, exclusive of fees, extended warranty, and tax, in June 2023 from KJ Auto Sales | Approved Autoloans and Leasing, with financing from National Bank. In January 2025 the dealer approached him to refinance the same Jeep through CIBC to obtain a better interest rate, which he agreed to do.

According to Hurry, the dealer secured the new CIBC funds but never paid out the original National Bank loan. That left him carrying two loans on a single vehicle. In August 2025 he applied to the Fund for $29,235.28. On November 11, 2025 the Board of Trustees denied the claim, and Hurry appealed to the Tribunal under s. 85 of O. Reg. 333/08.

These are Hurry’s submissions and the Board’s recorded position. KJ Auto Sales was not a party to this appeal, and the Tribunal made no finding against the dealer. The only question before the adjudicator was whether Hurry’s loss qualified for Fund compensation.

The gateway: a trade between the customer and the dealer

Section 79(1)(a) of O. Reg. 333/08 says a customer of a registered dealer is entitled to compensation from the Fund for a pecuniary loss “if the claim arose from a trade in a motor vehicle between the customer and the dealer.” The word “trade” is not open-ended. Section 1 of the MVDA defines it as “buying, selling, leasing, advertising or exchanging an interest in a motor vehicle,” or inducing or attempting to induce any of those.

Hurry’s argument was that the January 28, 2025 bill of sale was itself a trade: it showed the dealership providing the 2019 Jeep and him agreeing to pay for it, so a transaction between two parties had occurred. The Board’s position was that the refinancing was strictly a bank loan, not a sale or lease of a vehicle, and the Fund “does not extend to remedying every wrongdoing that causes loss to a customer.”

Why the refinancing was not a trade

The adjudicator agreed with the Board. The reasoning turned on a simple fact: Hurry already owned the Jeep.

• He did not buy or lease the 2019 Jeep in January 2025. He had bought it in June 2023. The two bills of sale carry the same VIN, and on cross-examination he confirmed he was not buying the vehicle again (at [16]).
• He did not sell or exchange an interest in the Jeep back to the dealer. An MTO record showed ownership transferring to the dealer on January 29, 2025 and reverting to Hurry the same day, but Hurry testified he never authorized any transfer. The adjudicator gave that record little weight, concluding the same-day entries most likely came from inaccurate reporting to MTO by someone other than Hurry (at [17]).
• Hurry’s own understanding was that he was “transferring a loan and not a vehicle” to get a better rate (at [17]).

On that record the adjudicator found the January 2025 transaction was “something other than a trade” (at [15]). Because the claim did not arise from a trade between the customer and the dealer, s. 79(1)(a) was not met and the appeal was dismissed (at [19] to [21]).

The fictitious trade-in the Tribunal did not have to decide

The January 2025 bill of sale also recorded a $27,865 trade-in allowance for a 2017 Jeep Cherokee. On cross-examination Hurry agreed he did not in fact trade in any 2017 Jeep, and that the entry was “probably” documented to wipe out the tax otherwise payable on the refinanced value (at [18]).

The Board had argued in the alternative that this made Hurry complicit in illegal conduct relating to the trade, which would independently disentitle him under s. 79(4)(d) of O. Reg. 333/08. Because the claim already failed at the s. 79(1)(a) gateway, the adjudicator did not need to decide the complicity question (at [20]). The fictitious trade-in still mattered to the analysis: it was one more reason the paperwork did not reflect a genuine exchange of an interest in a vehicle.

What to learn

• The Fund follows the trade, not the loss. Section 79(1)(a) gates every claim on a pecuniary loss “from a trade in a motor vehicle between the customer and the dealer.” A financing or refinancing loss on a vehicle the consumer already owns is not a buy, sell, lease, or exchange under the s. 1 definition of trade, so it sits outside the Fund even when the dealer’s conduct looks wrongful.
• Apparent dealer wrongdoing is not enough by itself. The Board conceded the dealer appeared to have done wrong, and the claim still failed. The Fund is a defined statutory remedy, not a backstop for every dealer dispute. A consumer in this position is left to civil remedies against the dealer.
• A paper trade-in that never happened cuts against the consumer. Hurry’s admission that the 2017 Jeep trade-in was fictitious and tax-driven did not help his claim, and it opened the door to a s. 79(4)(d) complicity argument the Tribunal flagged but never had to reach. Signing a bill of sale that records a trade-in you did not make is its own exposure.