LAT revokes Leon's Fine Cars and Babekov over six suspect vehicle transfers

On April 13, 2026, the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld OMVIC’s proposal to revoke the registrations of Leon’s Fine Cars Inc. and its sole officer Lev Babekov, ending a 24-year run for both the dealer and the salesperson. The case turned on six luxury vehicles, including a 2022 Mercedes-Benz G63 that turned out to be a stolen and revinned car. The full decision is published on CanLII as 2026 CanLII 34296 (ON LAT).

What happened

In late 2023 and early 2024, six high-end vehicles were transferred into the dealership’s name through Ministry of Transportation registrations:

1. 2022 Mercedes-Benz G63 (transferred Jan 22, 2024). The original owner had exported it to South Korea on Jan 29, 2023. Toronto Police later seized the vehicle, found it had been re-VINed, and traced it back to a residential break-in.
2. 2021 Lamborghini Urus (Jan 22, 2024). Exported to Dubai by the original owner.
3. 2010 Bentley GTS (Jan 2, 2024). Exported to Norway in November 2020.
4. 2020 Porsche 842 (Jan 2, 2024).
5. 2022 Ford F-350 (Oct 25, 2023, then transferred to Babekov personally the next day). Exported to Israel August 2023.
6. 2023 Dodge Ram (Jan 2, 2024).

After Toronto Police seized the Mercedes on Feb 24, 2024, Babekov went to the MTO on Feb 29 and transferred all six vehicles back into the names of the original owners by forging their signatures. When OMVIC executed a search warrant in July 2024, Babekov denied having any documentation for any of the six vehicles.

Both Babekov and Leon’s Fine Cars Inc. pleaded guilty to multiple Provincial Offences Act charges, conceding that documents had been furnished and falsified contrary to s. 27 of the MVDA and records had not been maintained under s. 53(4) of O. Reg. 333/08.

The defence the Tribunal rejected

Babekov testified that the transfers were a favour to a former employee, Mykhailo Zgurskiy, who had been terminated for poor attendance after six months of work in 2008 and reappeared in 2022 saying he was now wealthy. Babekov said he agreed to put the vehicles in the dealership’s name to save Zgurskiy money on HST and insurance, that he never received bills of sale, and that he was a victim of fraud.

The Tribunal did not accept this. At paragraph [18], the adjudicator found it was not “worthy of belief” that a 24-year industry veteran would trust a former employee dismissed for poor performance with the transfer of vehicles “worth hundreds of thousands of dollars” without bills of sale or any verification of the sales. At paragraph [20], the adjudicator noted that Babekov’s stated purpose, helping Zgurskiy avoid HST and insurance, was itself unlawful: he was “defrauding the CRA and insurance company”. When asked in cross-examination whether it was acceptable to defraud the government and insurance, Babekov “responded that this was okay”, which the Tribunal said “undermine the value of his testimony”.

Babekov’s account of the bills of sale also shifted during the hearing, from never receiving them, to having them, to Zgurskiy taking them. The dealership’s transfer paperwork showed the vehicles’ original kilometres and colours when he transferred them back to the registered owners, despite the MTO history showing the vehicles had been driven and rewrapped before the dealership took title.

Why conditions could not save the registration

The appellants asked the Tribunal to substitute terms and conditions, such as a compliance consultant or further OMVIC training, instead of revocation. They relied on a 24-year unblemished history.

The Tribunal rejected the request. At paragraph [36(ii)], the adjudicator found the unblemished-history claim was inaccurate: the appellants had been involved in an OMVIC proceeding in 2022 over a customer deposit, where they paid a fine and took OMVIC’s course. That earlier training did not prevent the conduct under review. The Tribunal also distinguished this case from prior decisions where conditions were sufficient: there was a direct nexus between Babekov’s conduct and the trade in motor vehicles, and Babekov had shown wilful blindness, not remorse. Consumer harm was direct, given that one of the vehicles was stolen in a residential break-in.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Notice of Proposal under s. 6(1)(a)(ii), s. 6(1)(d)(iii), and s. 6(1)(f) of the MVDA. Both registrations are revoked.

The decision can be appealed to the Divisional Court within 30 days of release.

What to learn

• Verify ownership at the source. Before taking title to a vehicle, check the MTO record against the seller’s identity and history. Discrepancies in kilometres, colour, or recent re-registrations are red flags. Standard Condition 11 of the registration agreement requires this; it is not optional.
• Bills of sale are non-negotiable. Records under s. 53(4) of O. Reg. 333/08 include the bill of sale and other transfer documents. No paper, no defence: the Tribunal will treat the absence of records as evidence the transactions were not legitimate.
• A “favour” that defrauds anyone is conduct under s. 6. Even if the dealer is not paid, helping a third party avoid tax or insurance through a registration transfer is dishonest conduct that supports revocation. The Code of Ethics applies to every transaction, paid or not.