OMVIC fines Bolton Honda $6,000 for hiding accident history and submitting false records

On April 2, 2026, OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined 1548704 Ontario Inc. o/a Bolton Honda $6,000 and ordered its General Manager Daniel Heckbert to complete the MVDA Key Elements course after the dealer sold a 2021 Dodge Challenger without disclosing that the vehicle had been declared an insurance total loss, then submitted altered disclosure documents to OMVIC during the investigation.

What happened

On January 9, 2024, Bolton Honda sold a 2021 Dodge Challenger to a consumer for $36,888 plus fees. The vehicle had sustained accident damage in 2023 with a repair estimate of $39,774 and had been declared an insurance total loss.

The vehicle purchase agreement included a disclosure form. On the question asking whether the vehicle had sustained damage exceeding $3,000, the dealer checked both “yes” and “no.” The dealer did enter the $39,774 repair cost on the form, but left blank a question asking about any other “pertinent fact.” On the question asking whether the vehicle had been declared an insurance total loss, the dealer checked “no.”

The contradictory answers on the damage question, combined with the false “no” on the total-loss question and the blank pertinent-fact field, meant the consumer left the dealership without a clear picture of what they had bought. That violates s. 42(19) of O. Reg. 333/08, which requires disclosure to be “clear, comprehensible and prominent,” and s. 42(21), which requires disclosure of an insurance total loss.

The altered documents

About 15 months later, in April 2025, the consumer tried to trade in the Challenger at another dealership. That dealer informed them of the accident history and the $39,774 repair estimate. The consumer obtained an appraisal confirming the vehicle’s value had decreased. On May 5, 2025, the consumer filed a complaint with OMVIC.

The consumer also sent Bolton Honda a letter on May 20, 2025, requesting a refund or compensation. The dealer did not respond.

When OMVIC’s representative requested the dealer’s records on June 3, 2025, Heckbert provided a copy of the vehicle purchase agreement and disclosure form on June 5. But the dealer’s copy did not match the consumer’s copy in two ways:

1. The dealer’s version had “Carfax Claim Disclosed As: Other Damage $39,774” written into the pertinent-fact field that was blank on the consumer’s copy.
2. The dealer’s version had “No” crossed out on the damage question, while the consumer’s copy still showed both “yes” and “no” checked.

The Tribunal found that “there is only one reasonable inference to be drawn”: the documents had been altered to minimize the severity of the dealer’s actions. Furnishing false records of a trade violates s. 27 of the MVDA, and Code of Ethics s. 9(1) and s. 9(2).

Bolton Honda claimed it did not know the records were false. The panel did not accept that explanation.

On June 24, 2025, Heckbert offered the consumer $4,000 to settle all claims. The consumer accepted.

The order

The Tribunal imposed three penalties:

1. $6,000 fine payable within 90 days.
2. Bolton Honda must offer and fund the Automotive Certification Course for all current and future salespersons within 90 days (effective for 90 days).
3. Heckbert must complete the MVDA Key Elements course with an 80% pass mark within 90 days.

Heckbert was found to have personally breached Code of Ethics s. 6(2) (a salesperson shall not do or omit to do anything that causes the dealer to contravene the regulation) and s. 9(3) (best efforts to prevent error, misrepresentation, or fraud).

Aggravating and mitigating factors

This was Bolton Honda’s and Heckbert’s second appearance before the Discipline Tribunal. In 2024, both were found in breach of all-in pricing regulations. The panel noted there was “no added penalty” for repeat offenders and called the $6,000 figure “on the extreme lowest edge of the range of possible penalties.”

In mitigation, the dealer accepted responsibility through an agreed statement of facts and made restitution to the consumer ($4,000).

The panel accepted the jointly proposed penalty as being in the public interest, but the decision signals that repeat offenders face thinning goodwill from the Tribunal.

What to learn

• Disclose total-loss status clearly. Section 42(21) of O. Reg. 333/08 requires it. Contradictory answers on a disclosure form do not count as clear disclosure under s. 42(19).
• Never alter records after the fact. Submitting modified documents to OMVIC during an investigation is a separate violation of MVDA s. 27 and will be treated as an aggravating factor.
• Respond to consumer complaints promptly. Ignoring a written request for compensation does not make the complaint go away. It makes the eventual Tribunal appearance worse.