Ontario courts log 12 MVDA convictions and $26,000 in fines in one July week, including revoked dealer Milan Maceka

Twelve convictions landed on OMVIC’s court enforcement table in the week of July 9 to 16, 2026, spread across courts in Hamilton, Windsor, Ottawa and Toronto, with $26,000 in total fines. Ten counts were guilty pleas; two were entered at trial, and those two came with 24 months of probation attached. The batch follows the Brampton curbsider convictions of July 7 and shows the prosecution track running at a steady clip through the summer.

One name stands out. Milan Maceka, operating as Car Import Export, pleaded guilty in Hamilton on July 16 to two counts: retaining an unregistered salesperson contrary to s. 4(3) of the MVDA, and a count the table records as a violation of Ontario Regulation 333/08 without further detail. Each drew a $2,500 fine, $5,000 in all. This is the same Maceka whose dealer and salesperson registrations the Licence Appeal Tribunal revoked in April 2026 after finding he let an unregistered friend sell vehicles on his Hamilton lot, taking $4,500 from a consumer who never received the car. The revocation ended his registration; the prosecution now adds quasi-criminal convictions for the same species of conduct. Losing a licence and answering charges are separate consequences, and OMVIC pursued both.

The Windsor, Ottawa and Toronto files

• 2775401 Ontario Inc. o/a Qaddis (Windsor) pleaded guilty to three counts: retaining an unregistered salesperson under s. 4(3) ($2,500, July 15) and two counts of trading from a place not authorized by the registration, contrary to s. 28(4) of O. Reg. 333/08 ($1,000 each, July 13). Total: $4,500.
• Nawar Qadas (Windsor) pleaded guilty to the same s. 4(3) count ($2,500) and two s. 28(4) counts ($500 each), all on July 13. Total: $3,500.
• Mehdi El Ghissassi (Ottawa) pleaded guilty on July 15 to acting as a dealer without registration under s. 4(1)(a) ($3,000) and to an unfair practice count of false, misleading or deceptive representation under ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act ($2,500). Total: $5,500.
• Ardit Kamberi (Toronto) was convicted at trial on July 9 on the same pairing, s. 4(1)(a) ($2,500) and the CPA unfair-practice provision ($5,000), with 24 months of probation recorded on each count. Total: $7,500.

The Qaddis and Qadas files are worth a second look because they are not classic curbsider prosecutions. Retaining an unregistered salesperson under s. 4(3) is a charge that lands on the dealer side of the counter, the same prohibition that anchored the discipline case against Guelph Hyundai. And trading from an unauthorized place under s. 28(4) is the rule the offsite trade permit bulletin explains: sales happen at the registered place of business or at an authorized offsite location, nowhere else.

The Kamberi file extends a pattern from the June convictions: probation terms attached to Provincial Offences Act convictions. At 24 months, his probation runs twice as long as the 12-month terms recorded in June, and it hangs over him in a way a paid fine does not, since violating a probation condition opens a new prosecution. Under s. 32(3) of the MVDA the court could have gone further still: up to $50,000 and up to two years less a day of jail for an individual.

The CPA counts also matter. El Ghissassi and Kamberi were each convicted of an unfair practice alongside their unregistered-dealing counts, which means the prosecutions treated the sales as deceptive, not merely unlicensed. Where a curbsider misleads the buyer as well as the regulator, both statutes are available and both were used.

The usual sourcing caution applies: none of these rows carries an underlying court document, so the table’s five published fields, as they stood on July 20, 2026, are the entire record available for this post. The same table lists three active s. 4(1)(a) charges against Ali Al-Musawy (Windsor, laid July 7, 2026); those counts are unproven and remain before the court.

What to learn

• Revocation does not end the file. Maceka lost both registrations at the LAT in April and was convicted in Hamilton in July. Registration action under s. 9 and prosecution under s. 32 are independent tracks, and one does not absorb the other.
• s. 4(3) reaches the dealer who looks the other way. Two of the five parties this week were convicted for retaining an unregistered salesperson, not for selling unregistered themselves. Who works your lot is a prosecutable question.
• Where you trade is regulated too. Four counts this week were for trading from an unauthorized place under s. 28(4) of O. Reg. 333/08. The registered place of business is part of the registration, and an unauthorized location is an offence even for conduct that would otherwise be lawful.