LAT preserves Used Car Depot's 30-year registration with conditions instead of revocation

On April 7, 2026, the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal declined to carry out OMVIC’s Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of Jagatinder Jandu and his dealership Used Car Depot, instead substituting its own opinion under s. 9(5) of the MVDA and ordering registration to continue with conditions. Jandu had been registered as a salesperson since 1997; the dealership since 1995. The decision is published on CanLII as 2026 CanLII 31476 (ON LAT).

The case is worth reading because the adjudicator agreed with OMVIC on every disentitling ground in the Notice of Proposal and still preferred conditions over revocation. The reasoning maps cleanly onto the statutory test in s. 6 and the public-interest discretion in s. 9(5).

What OMVIC proved

The Notice of Proposal was issued August 11, 2025 and supplemented by a Notice of Further and Other Particulars on January 14, 2026. A day-and-a-half videoconference hearing followed in February 2026 (February 23 and 24). OMVIC put forward three witnesses: an inspector, an enforcement coordinator, and the accounts receivable supervisor at Lubrico Warranty.

A garage register that wasn’t being kept

OMVIC’s inspector found a gap in the dealership’s records between 2017 and 2022. Jandu testified that the electronic register from that period had been destroyed by a flood that took out the dealership computer. The Tribunal accepted that explanation but still found the dealership in non-compliance because the post-2023 register only recorded sales, not purchases. That failed s. 57 of O. Reg. 333/08, which imports the records prescribed by s. 60 of the Highway Traffic Act, including purchases, sales, and the prescribed disposal information for every second-hand vehicle the dealer touches.

The argument that the Ministry of Transportation tracks the same sales data was not enough. The adjudicator found the obligation rests on the dealer, and whether the data exists somewhere else is irrelevant.

Warranty payments not registered or remitted on time

The dealer sold extended warranties through Lubrico. On two transactions the warranty was never registered or paid for. On five more, payment was sent months after the sale. At the time of the inspection s. 47(7)(c) of O. Reg. 333/08 gave the dealer seven days to remit the payment to the warranty seller. The regulation has since been amended to thirty days under O. Reg. 278/24.

Jandu admitted the failure, said he was unaware of the seven-day deadline, refunded each affected consumer when he discovered the error, and noted that Lubrico had honoured all of the warranties anyway. The Tribunal accepted his good faith, gave him credit for the refunds, and still found the breach proven. Awareness of the rule is not an element of compliance with it.

HST records not produced and a CRA debt of $263,300.95

The most serious finding was financial responsibility. OMVIC’s inspector requested the dealership’s HST records as part of an inspection that the dealer rescheduled four times. By the date of the hearing, almost two years after the inspection began, the records still had not been produced. A letter from CRA admitted into evidence showed that Jandu had been put on a payment plan to repay $263,300.95 in outstanding HST.

The Tribunal found the dealership had not been operating in a financially responsible manner, disentitling the registrations under s. 6(1)(d)(i) of the MVDA. The adjudicator was direct about why this is the most serious of the findings: the unremitted HST is money that does not belong to the dealer. Section 3(1) of the Code of Ethics, O. Reg. 332/08, says the same thing in plainer language, and OMVIC cited it in writing to the dealer in April 2024.

Breach of consent terms and conditions

In February 2025 Jandu signed terms and conditions agreeing to provide a $20,000 letter of credit by February 18, 2025 and to deliver the outstanding HST records. The letter of credit arrived on the eve of the February 2026 hearing. The HST records had still not been produced. That was a breach disentitling registration under s. 6(1)(f).

The adjudicator added an unusual aside on this finding: OMVIC’s June 2024 warning letter and a follow-up email from its enforcement coordinator did not explain that the terms were on consent, did not explain why a letter of credit was being requested, and did not warn of the consequences of non-compliance. The breach was made out, but the Tribunal flagged the communication gap.

Past conduct and the dealership

Because Jandu was the sole director and officer of the dealership, his conduct fixed to the corporation through the interested-person rule in s. 1(2) and s. 6(4) of the Act. That carried the disentitlement findings under s. 6(1)(a)(ii) and s. 6(1)(d)(iii) across both registrations.

Why the Tribunal didn’t revoke

OMVIC asked for revocation and relied on 11640 v. Registrar, MVDA, 2019 CanLII 77001 (ON LAT), where a dealer who failed to pay out liens on consumer vehicles and bounced cheques to creditors had its registration revoked. The Tribunal distinguished it. The 11640 dealer hurt consumers directly and did not participate in the hearing; Jandu’s failures were against CRA, and the consumers Lubrico would have been on the hook for were refunded.

Three points carried the substitution analysis under s. 9(5):

1. A 30-year unblemished record. No prior consumer complaints, no prior discipline, no past inspection findings of substance. The adjudicator treated this as evidence of a brief deviation rather than a pattern.
2. Self-correction. Jandu had refunded the warranty consumers as soon as he learned of the gap, had a CRA repayment plan in place, and had agreed in OMVIC’s separate disciplinary proceeding to take the Key Elements course.
3. No consumer harm in this case. Lubrico had paid out the warranties; the HST issue was a debt to CRA, not to a buyer.

The conditions the Tribunal imposed

In place of revocation, the registrations continue subject to:

• Completing OMVIC’s certification course at Jandu’s own cost within six months of the decision and providing proof of completion.
• Submitting any outstanding Notices of Assessment and tax information to the Registrar within two weeks of receiving them from CRA.
• Submitting monthly proof to the Registrar of good standing on the HST repayment schedule.
• Continuing to comply with the consent terms and conditions signed February 2, 2025.

What to learn

• Financial responsibility is its own ground. Section 6(1)(d)(i) lets the Registrar refuse or revoke a dealership registration on financial grounds alone. Unremitted HST owed to CRA is treated as money the dealer is holding for someone else; falling that far behind is what made this case serious. Code of Ethics s. 3(1) restates the obligation in plainer language.
• Records discipline covers purchases, not just sales. s. 57 of O. Reg. 333/08 and HTA s. 60 require the full register; s. 47(7)(c) gives a dealer thirty days to remit warranty payments. MTO data is not a substitute, and the warranty company eventually paying out is not a defence.
• A long clean record can swing the result. Section 9(5) gives the Tribunal real discretion. A clean prior history, real corrective steps, and the absence of consumer harm can move a case from revocation to conditions even when every disentitling ground in the Notice of Proposal is made out.