OMVIC fines Auto Find $7,000 over deposit dispute, undisclosed private loans, and Range Rover all-in price

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined 1828569 Ontario Inc. o/a Auto Find $7,000 on April 29, 2026 after three separate compliance failures were rolled into a single Agreed Statement of Facts. William Clement Bencik, the dealer’s Business Manager, Director, and Person in Charge since the dealership opened in April 2012, must complete the MVDA Key Elements Course within 90 days. The dealer must offer to fund the Automotive Certification Course for every salesperson on its current and future roster.

The case is unusual because the panel found three independent problems in one matter: a deposit dispute, an unreported run of private loans, and an all-in pricing breach. Each failure draws on a different statutory anchor. Taken together, they explain why the panel landed on $7,000, the largest fine in the April 29 docket.

Failure 1: a $2,000 deposit on a sourcing deal that never closed

In June 2024 a consumer paid Auto Find $2,000 as a deposit on a Honda CRV that the dealer was asked to source. The parties signed what the order calls a “Sourcing Agreement” stating the deposit was non-refundable. The dealer obtained a vehicle, but the consumer was not satisfied with what was delivered.

In October 2024 the consumer complained to OMVIC. An OMVIC representative directed the consumer to put the refund request in writing. The dealer refused, citing $1,400 in expenses incurred while sourcing the car, and offered to return the unused $600. The consumer refused.

OMVIC then asked Bencik for documents. The dealer produced a “Purchase to Lease Agreement” and a “Request to Return Vehicle” form, but neither document was a contract for the purchase or lease of a motor vehicle. The panel found that without a completed sale contract the dealer could not keep the deposit, citing s. 38 of O. Reg. 333/08, the deposit rule. The Code of Ethics findings followed: a registrant who keeps consumer money outside the rules has not “carr[ied] on business ethically and with respect for the rights and interests of the persons with whom they do business,” in the language of s. 8(2) of the Code of Ethics.

What followed compounded the breach. The OMVIC representative emailed the dealer on December 4, 2024, asking for the wholesale bill of sale and expense receipts. Two follow-up calls on December 6 and December 10 went unanswered. A December 11 letter set a December 18 deadline and warned of administrative consequences. The dealer did not respond by the deadline. That non-response engaged s. 14(3) of the MVDA, the duty to give the Registrar information requested in the course of an investigation, alongside s. 9(1) of the Code of Ethics on professionalism.

Failure 2: $275,000 in handwritten “loan” deposits, no notice to the Registrar

A March 14, 2025 books and records inspection found six deposits on Auto Find’s bank statements, each labelled “loan” in handwriting:

• November 4, 2024: $50,000
• November 19, 2024: $50,000
• November 21, 2024: $50,000
• January 16, 2025: $25,000
• January 22, 2025: $50,000
• January 23, 2025: $50,000

Bencik told the inspector the deposits were loans from a “private lender from family.” He also told the inspector that he had been forthright in a 2016 inspection about receiving private financing. The 2016 conversation does not satisfy the rule. O. Reg. 333/08 s. 31(1)(a) requires a dealer to notify the Registrar in writing within five days of any new source of financing other than from a bank, credit union, or loan and trust corporation. Each of these six deposits was a new event that needed its own written notice within five days. None were filed.

The inspector gave the dealer five business days to provide details. By April 11, 2025 the dealer had not complied. That was a second contravention of s. 9(1) of the Code of Ethics, this time for the financing non-disclosure rather than the deposit non-response.

Section 31(1)(a) is not a glamorous rule, but it is how the Registrar tracks whether a dealer can meet its obligations to consumers and the Compensation Fund. Six undisclosed $50,000 inflows in three months from “family” creditors is exactly the situation the rule exists to surface.

Failure 3: $12.50 OMVIC fee added on top of an advertised Range Rover lease

The same March 2025 inspection turned up two flawed contracts. The Range Rover one is the simpler of the two and the more obvious breach. On or before November 25, 2024, the dealer advertised a 2016 Land Rover Range Rover at $28,999 plus “taxes and fees.” On November 25 the dealer leased the vehicle to a consumer. The retail bill of sale showed a mandatory $12.50 OMVIC fee added on top of the $28,999. That alone breached s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08, the all-in price advertising rule.

The Range Rover transaction also included a third-party warranty. The dealer failed to remit the warranty payment to the warranty provider within 30 days, contrary to O. Reg. 333/08 s. 47(7)(c).

The earlier Jaguar XE transaction in the same inspection had a softer outcome: the dealer had provided the consumer with a Carfax report describing the damage and had the consumer sign beside an accident-damage disclosure, but the retail bill of sale omitted the specific $21,742.83 repair estimate. The panel treated that as a paperwork breach of s. 7(1) of the Code of Ethics (the rule that documents used in a trade must comply with the law) and s. 9(3) (best efforts to prevent error). It is a useful contrast: a dealer who substantively informs a buyer through Carfax can still be sanctioned when the bill of sale itself does not carry the dollar figure the regulation requires.

Why the fine landed at $7,000

The panel listed two aggravating factors. The dealer failed to respond to the Registrar without explanation. And the dealer had agreed in 2012 to written Terms and Conditions of Registration that expressly highlighted the very obligations later breached, including the duty to notify the Registrar of new financing under paragraph 31 of the T&Cs. The order also notes that the dealer had been “reminded of its obligations” during inspections in 2016, 2018, and 2024. The decision quotes seven T&Cs paragraphs into its findings so the prior warnings could not be characterised as general housekeeping:

• paragraph 6 (compliance with O. Reg. 332/08 and the Code of Ethics)
• paragraph 8 (5-day notice of substantive business plan changes)
• paragraph 16 (maintain accurate books and records)
• paragraph 17 (records consistent with O. Reg. 333/08 ss. 52 to 57)
• paragraph 23 (positive duty to disclose material facts on the bill of sale)
• paragraph 29 (trades completed under O. Reg. 333/08 ss. 39 to 43 and Code of Ethics s. 4)
• paragraph 31 (5-day notice of new financing or guarantors)

The mitigating factor was procedural: the parties signed an Agreed Statement of Facts under Rule 1.07 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice, waived an oral hearing, and Bencik agreed to take the Key Elements Course. The Reviewing Panel framed the result in standard terms: specific deterrence on Bencik, general deterrence for the industry, and rehabilitation through the education requirement.

Bencik’s personal breaches of s. 6(2), s. 9(1), and s. 9(3) of the Code of Ethics flow from his role as Business Manager, Director, and PIC. Section 6(2) prohibits a registered salesperson from doing or omitting to do anything that causes the employing dealer to contravene the regulations. The accountability finding attaches to the day-to-day decision-maker.

What to learn

• A “non-refundable” deposit clause does not survive an uncompleted contract. If the trade never closes, s. 38 of O. Reg. 333/08 controls, and a dealer that keeps the money risks a s. 8(2) finding regardless of any signed sourcing form. Compare the Jandu / Used Car Depot LAT decision for how panels weigh dealer cooperation when consumer money is in dispute.
• Every new source of financing other than a chartered bank, credit union, or loan and trust corporation triggers a five-day written notice under s. 31(1)(a) of O. Reg. 333/08. Telling an inspector during a future visit is not notice. Loans from family count.
• A $12.50 OMVIC fee added on top of an advertised price is the same s. 36(7) breach as a $999 administration fee added on top of an advertised price. See the CCC Motors, Hully Gully, and Thunder Bay Harley-Davidson decisions for the rule applied at different fee scales.