Charged in 40 wholesale-class sales, convicted at trial: Matthew Motiey o/a European Autohaus Toronto takes $40,000 in fines and $5,500 in restitution

On August 12, 2026, the Ontario Court of Justice sitting in Whitby convicted Matthew Motiey, operating as European Autohaus Toronto, at trial on four counts: three under s. 21 of O. Reg. 333/08 for wholesale dealer acting out of its class of registration, at $10,000 each, and one under ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act for a false, misleading or deceptive representation, at another $10,000. OMVIC’s court table records $40,000 in fines and $5,500 in restitution across the four rows. The registration behind all of it was wholesale class, which authorizes trading with other registered dealers and a handful of narrow exceptions, none of them sales to the public.

Forty-two counts, four convictions

OMVIC publishes most court outcomes as bare rows. This one arrived with its charging document: a Provincial Offences Act Information laying 42 counts against Motiey at 507 Dunlop Street in Whitby. Counts 1 through 40 each name one vehicle, with its VIN, that Motiey allegedly traded out of class between January 27 and July 23, 2025, contrary to s. 21(a), an offence under s. 32 of the MVDA. The list runs mostly to Hondas and Toyotas from the 2002 to 2019 model years, with a Ford Transit, a Volkswagen Jetta, a Hyundai, a Jeep, two Volvos and a BMW among them. Counts 41 and 42 charge unfair practices under CPA ss. 14(1) and 17(1), attached to two vehicles already on the list, a 2011 Honda and a 2008 Volvo.

The published record does not say how the remaining 38 counts resolved; the endorsement pages are handwritten and the redacted scan is not legible enough to tell. The table records the outcome: four convictions after a contested trial, each carrying a $10,000 fine.

The restitution orders

Two restitution orders accompany the convictions, both signed at Whitby. The first, under s. 33(1) of the MVDA, orders Motiey to pay $500 to a named consumer, tied to a conviction the order describes as “trading motor vehicles to consumers while being registered as wholesale dealer.” The second, under s. 117 of the Consumer Protection Act, orders $5,000 on the unfair-practice conviction.

Both statutes give the court this power on conviction, and the pairing here shows how they divide the work. The MVDA order compensates a consumer harmed by the registration offence itself; the CPA order attaches to the misrepresentation. A buyer who paid for a car on the strength of a false representation does not need to sue to get an order in their favour when the prosecution succeeds.

Where this lands against the other court outcomes

Two and a half weeks earlier, Nikitakis Anastasios o/a Yuppie Wheels pleaded guilty to three counts under the same s. 21 and paid $1,000 on each. Motiey contested the same charge and each conviction came in at $10,000.

His $40,000 fine total passes Zsolt Notar’s $31,000 from July 29, though Notar’s $48,000 in fines and restitution combined remains higher than Motiey’s $45,500. Like Notar and Laura Orgovan before him, Motiey was convicted at trial rather than on a plea.

The table’s appeal column reads “No” as of this writing.

What this conviction teaches

• Wholesale registration authorizes dealer-to-dealer trades. The restitution order describes the offence in one line: “trading motor vehicles to consumers while being registered as wholesale dealer.” Selling retail takes a general-class registration; s. 21 of O. Reg. 333/08 draws the line, and each sale across it can be charged separately.
• One transaction can breach two statutes. Counts 41 and 42 attached CPA unfair-practice charges to vehicles already charged as out-of-class trades. The conviction under ss. 14(1) and 17(1) cost the same $10,000 as each MVDA count.
• Restitution came from two statutes in one proceeding. $500 under MVDA s. 33(1) tied to the out-of-class conviction, and $5,000 under CPA s. 117 tied to the misrepresentation. Each order names its own statutory basis, and both issued out of the same Whitby proceeding.