OMVIC fines Beattie Chrysler $5,000 after admin, CarFax, and OMVIC fees pushed two used-vehicle sales over the advertised price

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined Beattie Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Ltd. $5,000 on April 29, 2026 after an inspection at the dealer’s Brockville Head Office found two sales where the bill of sale price exceeded the advertised price. Kevin Beattie, the Officer and Person in Charge at both registered locations, must successfully complete the OMVIC Advertising Compliance Webinar within 90 days. The dealer must offer to fund the MVDA Key Elements Course for every current and future salesperson it employs.

The order arrives one full year after the Registrar had already reminded the dealer in person. On June 20, 2024, an OMVIC inspector visited the dealership and told staff to advertise all-inclusive prices as required by section 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 and the Code of Ethics. Fourteen months later, on August 20, 2025, the inspector came back for a books and records review and found two recent transactions that broke the same rule.

What the inspection found

2019 Jeep Cherokee 4WD (Stock P1439)

The dealer advertised a 2019 Jeep Cherokee 4WD at $20,995 on or before July 2, 2025. On July 11, 2025 the vehicle was sold to a consumer at a total $482.50 above the listed number. The bill of sale stacked three additions on top of the advertised price:

• $425 administration fee
• $12.50 OMVIC fee
• $45 CarFax fee

The dealer refunded the consumer in full when the additions were noticed.

2017 Honda Accord Hybrid (Stock P1434A)

Same pattern, a few weeks earlier. The dealer advertised a 2017 Honda Accord Hybrid at $18,995 on or before July 2, 2025. On June 20, 2025 it sold for $437.50 over the listed price. Two additions, this time without the CarFax line:

• $425 administration fee
• $12.50 OMVIC fee

That consumer was also refunded in full.

Both transactions land outside s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08, the all-in price rule. A $425 administration fee is not a tax. A $12.50 OMVIC fee, the trust amount the regulator levies on each consumer transaction, is not a tax either. Neither is the $45 CarFax fee on the Cherokee. None of the three sits on the right side of the s. 36(10) sales-tax carve-out, and none of them is the licensing line OMVIC accepts as the further itemisation in practice. Every line above the advertised number is a separate way the advertisement failed the rule.

The s. 4(2) of the Code of Ethics finding tracks the same arithmetic. A representation that one number is the price, when the bill of sale puts a higher one in front of the consumer at signing, is not “legal, decent, ethical and truthful.” The s. 9(3) finding rides alongside: the registrant’s best-efforts duty to prevent error in respect of a trade in a motor vehicle.

Beattie’s personal finding

Kevin Beattie was first registered as a salesperson in or around April 2006 and has held the Officer and Person in Charge designation for the day-to-day activities of both registered locations: the Head Office at 8 Chase St in Brockville and the Branch Location at 146 Stewart Blvd, registered May 1993 and operating as Price Point Auto. The personal finding under s. 6(2) of the Code of Ethics follows from that role: a registered salesperson “shall not do or omit to do anything that causes the registered motor vehicle dealer who employs or retains the salesperson to contravene this Regulation or any applicable law with respect to trading in motor vehicles.”

The textual hook in s. 6(2) is “do or omit to do anything that causes” the dealer to contravene. A PIC who keeps overseeing a process that produces non-compliant bills of sale is omitting to do the thing that would stop the contravention, regardless of whose handwriting is on the contract. Twelve paragraphs of additional allegations from the original Notice of Referral to Discipline (paragraphs 8 to 15 and 24 to 39) were withdrawn before the order. The dealer-side findings narrowed to the two transactions described above, and Beattie’s personal finding narrowed to the s. 6(2) and s. 9(3) consequences of those same facts.

Why the fine landed at $5,000

The Reviewing Panel accepted the joint submission but flagged a proportionality concern in the same paragraph. From the order: “the panel finds that the penalty, while within a reasonable range, is on the lower end of what it considers appropriate in the circumstances. While panel does take into account that refunds were given, a penalty must be considered more than simply ‘the cost of doing business’.”

That is a deliberate signal. The dealer made the consumers whole on both transactions, which is real mitigation, but the panel did not want the file to read as a discount for fixing the symptom. The order names refunds as a factor that tempers the quantum without removing the breach.

The only formal mitigating factor the panel listed was the joint submission and Agreed Statement of Facts dated March 19, 2026, with a waiver of oral hearing under Rule 1.07 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice. The post-warning history, OMVIC’s June 2024 reminder during the prior inspection, is the contextual factor that kept the panel from going lower.

The third paragraph of the order, the funded Key Elements offer for every current and future salesperson, is the part the panel reaches for in cases like this one. It does not require any individual to enroll; it requires the dealer to pay, the registrant to ask, and the dealer’s response to be a yes. The order’s accompanying remittance bundle has the acknowledgment form a salesperson signs to confirm the offer was made at the dealer’s expense. CCC Motors and Riverside Chevrolet carried the same Key Elements offer; in Beattie Chrysler the offer extends across the two registered locations rather than a single rooftop.

What to learn

• A used-vehicle sale that adds an admin fee, an OMVIC fee, and a CarFax fee to the advertised price has built a three-line s. 36(7) breach into a single transaction. Refunding the consumer afterwards repairs the harm; it does not erase the breach.
• A prior in-person reminder from a Registrar’s inspector is the kind of contact OMVIC will name when explaining why the fine sits where it sits. The June 2024 reminder to Beattie Chrysler is the closest analogue in this case to the May 2022 warning letter that anchored the Riverside Chevrolet decision on the same docket day.
• An OMVIC Advertising Compliance Webinar order on the individual respondent is a targeted remediation, not a general re-education. The panel reaches for the webinar in lieu of a personal fine when the breach pattern is advertising-led and the registrant has the supervisory role that controls the dealer’s marketing output.