OMVIC fines Auto Line Toyota $3,500 for a $621 add-on quoted ten years after a $1,500 penalty under the same rule and fifteen months after a warning letter

On October 13, 2015, OMVIC’s Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on a Notice of Complaint against 1032447 Ontario Limited o/a Auto Line Toyota alleging, among other things, a failure to comply with s. 36 of O. Reg. 333/08 and contraventions of the Code of Ethics, fined the dealer $1,500 and ordered it to offer its staff the Automotive Certification Course. On July 22, 2024, after a mystery shop on June 27 of that year, the Registrar sent the dealer a warning letter reminding it of the same obligation. On October 21, 2025, an OMVIC representative posing as a member of the public asked about a 2024 Toyota Grand Highlander advertised at $49,888, and salesperson Rachel Balak told them a $599 dealer fee and a $22 OMVIC fee would be added, $621 above the price in the ad. The Discipline Tribunal’s order of April 2, 2026, made on agreed facts dated February 5, 2026, fined the dealer $3,500 for it.

Two fees on a Grand Highlander

The ad ran on or before October 20, 2025, the inquiry came the next day, and Balak, acting for the dealer, named the two fees. The parties agreed that adding $621 above the advertised price meant the price was not all-inclusive, contrary to s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08, and that the dealer had breached ss. 4(2) and 9(3) of the Code of Ethics. The $22 OMVIC fee is the transaction fee a dealer remits to the regulator, the same charge that put Autohouse Kingston and Brant County Ford before the Tribunal.

Peter Coutu, a salesperson since around August 1983 and the dealer’s Director and Person in Charge, was found in breach of ss. 6(2) and 9(3) for failing to ensure compliance. The agreed facts add that as Person in Charge he “was assigned primary responsibility for and agreed to be accountable for compliance with the Act and Regulations thereunder.” Balak, registered with the dealer since around February 2018, was found in breach of the same two sections for trading the vehicle contrary to ss. 4(2) and 9(3) and causing the dealer’s contravention.

Aggravating, mitigating, and a mystery shop that counts as a sale

Greg Flude, Jon Lemaire and Paul Repar sat as the Reviewing Panel, Flude as Public Member signing the reasons, and the reasons sort the factors into three groups. Under aggravating, the dealer had been counselled by OMVIC on all-in pricing in July 2024, OMVIC has published numerous bulletins on the rule, and the dealer had previously been before the Discipline Tribunal for breaching it. The Panel also noted that one trade was at issue. Under mitigating, the respondents accepted responsibility by signing the agreed facts and the joint submission.

Under a third heading, “Other Factors,” the Panel declined to treat the absence of consumer harm as mitigation. Its words: “It was, as far as the Dealer was concerned on the day, a consumer transaction. The Dealer cannot use the fact that in this instance it was a mystery shop to suggest its breach of the Code of Ethics was somehow less culpable than a sale to actual consumer.” The same paragraph appears in the Tribunal’s orders of the same date against CCC Motors and Thunder Bay Harley-Davidson, so on April 2, 2026 three dealers were told in the same words that a mystery shop counts as a sale.

The order is a $3,500 fine payable within 90 days, the MVDA Key Elements course within 90 days for Coutu and for Balak, and an offer from the dealer to fund Key Elements for every current and future salesperson. Unlike the May 2026 orders against Chenier Motors and Nawab Motors, this one attaches no minimum grade to the course. The Panel found $3,500 “in line with other penalties imposed by the Discipline Tribunal for similar behaviour” and enough “to signal to the industry that breaches of the regulations are serious offences.”

The dealer has been registered since around September 1993 and its Person in Charge has been registered since 1983. What the Panel counted was the history: a warning letter in July 2024, OMVIC’s bulletins, and, third under the aggravating heading, a prior proceeding for the same rule that had ended in a $1,500 fine in October 2015. The Panel’s closing sentence thanks the parties for resolving the matter without a hearing.