OMVIC fines Autohouse Kingston $2,500 over a $12.50 fee, after three written all-in pricing reminders

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined 1011613 Ontario Limited o/a Autohouse Kingston $2,500 on April 13, 2026 over twelve dollars and fifty cents. That is the entire dollar amount at issue: a $12.50 OMVIC fee added above the advertised price of a used Ford Edge during a mystery shop. It is the smallest amount any all-in pricing case in this collection turns on, and the order shows why the size of the overcharge was never the point.

The Kingston dealer, registered since February 1993, had been reminded about all-in pricing in writing three times: December 3, 2021, August 14, 2023, and December 11, 2023. Each reminder cited the same rule the dealer went on to breach.

The mystery shop

On or before June 11, 2025, Autohouse Kingston advertised a black 2023 Ford Edge SE, stock number 11289, at $28,995. On June 11 an OMVIC representative posing as a member of the public made inquiries. Tiffany Michealle Grant, the dealership’s Finance Manager and a registered salesperson since October 2017, provided a worksheet showing the $12.50 OMVIC fee added above the advertised price.

That single line item made the advertised price not all-inclusive. Section 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 defines an advertised price as the total of what the buyer pays for the vehicle plus all other charges related to the trade, naming “fees, levies and taxes” explicitly. The OMVIC transaction fee is a fee related to the trade. A dealer can absorb it or build it into the sticker, but it cannot ride on top.

The Agreed Statement of Facts particularised the conduct as contrary to s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08, and the panel’s findings against the dealer landed on s. 4(2) (truthful representations) and s. 9(3) (prevention of error and misrepresentation in a trade) of the Code of Ethics.

Three respondents, one withdrawal

Bradie Johnston, General Manager, a Person in Charge of day-to-day operations and a registered salesperson since June 2002, took personal findings under s. 6(2) and s. 9(3) for failing to ensure the dealer’s compliance. Grant, who handed the worksheet across the desk, was found to have breached s. 4(2), s. 6(2) and s. 9(3): her conduct in the trade both misrepresented the price and caused the dealer’s breach.

A fourth name appears only in the withdrawal paragraph. The allegations against Kenneth Johnston in the Notice of Referral to Discipline dated July 21, 2025 were withdrawn as part of the Agreed Statement of Facts, the same quiet exit recorded for individual respondents in Riverside Chevrolet.

The education orders follow the docket’s pattern but with a lighter touch than most: Johnston and Grant must each complete the OMVIC Advertising Compliance Webinar within 90 days rather than the full MVDA Key Elements Course, and the dealer must offer to fund the Automotive Certification Course for all current and future salespersons. Compare Sarnia Hyundai, decided the same day by the same panel, where the individuals were ordered onto Key Elements with an 80% pass threshold. The remedial program scales with the conduct, not just the fine.

Why $2,500 for $12.50

Sherry Darvish, public member, signed the order on behalf of registrant members Joe Malfara and Mike Ball, the same panel that decided Sarnia Hyundai that day. The matter proceeded in writing under Rule 1.07 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, on an Agreed Statement of Facts dated February 11, 2026. The reasons credit the settlement efforts, the respondents’ acceptance of responsibility, and consistency with precedent for similar Code of Ethics breaches.

Notably absent from the mitigation list is the line that appears in the Sarnia Hyundai order from the same docket: that this was the dealer’s first referral and no consumer harm occurred. What Autohouse Kingston had instead was a paper trail. Three written reminders over three and a half years meant the dealer could not plausibly say it didn’t know where the OMVIC fee belonged. The fine prices the ignored warnings, not the twelve dollars.

The $12.50 OMVIC fee keeps showing up in the 2025-2026 mystery-shop dockets. It appeared stacked above the advertised price in Riverside Chevrolet, in Sarnia Hyundai, and now here. It is a fee every dealer pays on every trade, which is exactly why OMVIC’s shoppers check where it lands on the worksheet.

What to learn

• The dollar size of the overcharge does not scale the breach. A $12.50 fee above an advertised price violates s. 36(7) as surely as the $890.50 in unexplained finance fees in the Sarnia Hyundai order, and it drew a $2,500 fine.
• Registrar reminder letters are evidence. Autohouse Kingston’s three all-in pricing reminders (2021, 2023, 2023) surfaced in the Agreed Statement of Facts as the history that framed the breach as a choice rather than a slip.
• The Finance Manager who fills out the worksheet owns the representation. Grant’s s. 4(2) finding attached to the document she handed the shopper, the same exposure the Finance Manager respondent carried in Pierson Motors.