OMVIC's tribunal fines Agincourt Hyundai $8,500 in total after a salesperson's denial 'shaded towards the fantastical'

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal ordered 1502026 Ontario Limited o/a Agincourt Hyundai to pay a $5,000 fine, salesperson Gesavan Sritharan $2,500, and General Manager Nicolaos Koundouros $1,000, in a Decision on Penalty whose written reasons are dated January 6, 2026. Both individuals must complete the MVDA Key Elements Course, and the dealer must offer to fund the Automotive Certification Course for all current and future salespersons. Unlike most cases on this site, which resolve on an Agreed Statement of Facts, this one was fought at every stage: a contested merits hearing decided July 9, 2025, then a contested penalty hearing on October 28, 2025 before panel chair Greg Flude with members Nelson Caetano and Joe Malfara.

The underlying facts are a standard mystery shop. On or about October 31, 2023, the dealer advertised a 2020 Hyundai Tucson Urban Edition for $34,991. OMVIC investigator Jodi Hughes visited posing as a consumer and dealt with Sritharan, who quoted her a price $1,036 above the advertised number: a $641 administration fee he said was not negotiable, plus a $395 “F & I” fee that might be. That is the breach s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 exists to catch: the advertised price must already include every fee the dealer charges, sales tax aside.

A defence that fell apart on the stand

What makes this decision worth reading is the credibility finding. The respondents’ defence at the merits hearing was first built on the argument that the investigator’s photo of a computer screen was not really a “quote”. Then Sritharan testified and, in the panel’s words, “remarkably denied the whole transaction”. He said he had never met the investigator and claimed his dealings on the Tucson were conducted only with an unknown man. The merits decision, quoted in the penalty reasons, found his evidence “shaded towards the fantastical”, at odds with his own earlier statements, the documents, and the investigator’s supported testimony.

The panel answered the quote-versus-representation argument directly: the regulations are aimed at representations rather than quotes. A salesperson talking numbers with a customer is making representations, whatever the paperwork is called.

That lack of candour changed the penalty. OMVIC had proposed only $500 for Sritharan, later revising toward $1,000; the respondents proposed $1,000 each. The panel rejected both positions and set $2,500, reasoning that Sritharan had recently completed the OMVIC certification course, which covers all-in pricing, showed no real remorse, and needed specific deterrence to learn “that truth and integrity are not options if he wants to continue his career in the automotive industry.” It applied the eight Aguirre factors used in professional discipline and invoked the Court of Appeal’s warning in R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd. that penalties must not become a licensing fee or a cost of doing business.

The compliance numbers OMVIC put on the record

To support deterrence, OMVIC filed industry-wide mystery shop results: 64 percent of 183 dealers shopped in 2022 complied first time, 67 percent in 2023, and 72 percent of 185 shops in 2024. On recheck several months later, 29 percent of the non-compliant dealers in 2022 and 2023 were still non-compliant, and 25 percent in 2024. The panel called those follow-up numbers disturbing and said they justify substantial penalties for general deterrence. The same program’s growth showed up in OMVIC’s 2025 annual report, and a panel made the related point in Thunder Bay Harley-Davidson: a breach against a mystery shopper is no less culpable than one against a real buyer.

The dealer side of the file looks like Autohouse Kingston and the rest of the all-in pricing docket, with one wrinkle: Koundouros, the General Manager, had already been through a review of the all-in rules after another inspector found the dealer adding the OMVIC fee to advertised prices. The panel still accepted his own proposal of a $1,000 fine, crediting his candour and his work to keep the dealer compliant, while noting the gaps that remained. The findings: Sritharan breached s. 4(1), s. 4(2), s. 6(2) and s. 9(3) of the Code of Ethics; the dealer s. 4(2) and s. 9(3); Koundouros s. 6(2) and s. 9(3).

What to learn

• Representations, not paperwork, trigger the rule. Quoting a price above the advertised number in conversation breaches s. 36(7); whether a document counts as a formal quote is beside the point.
• Fighting a losing case can raise the price. The panel set Sritharan’s fine at $2,500, above both parties’ proposals, expressly because his denial of the transaction destroyed his credibility and showed no appreciation of the misconduct.
• Recent training removes the ignorance defence. Sritharan had just passed the OMVIC certification course, so the panel refused to accept he did not know the all-in pricing rules. Certification cuts both ways: it qualifies you, and it fixes you with knowledge.