A $22 fee on a $59,598 Mustang brings Brant County Ford its second all-in pricing discipline in six months: $5,000 in fines plus an education order

The gap between the advertised price and the worksheet price was $22. On or before March 9, 2026, Brant County Ford Sales Limited advertised a 2025 Ford Mustang GT at $59,598 plus licensing and taxes. On or about March 10, 2026, an OMVIC representative made a mystery-shop inquiry about the car, and salesperson Christopher Lye handed over a printed worksheet showing the same $59,598 selling price with an OMVIC fee of $22 added to it. That worksheet is the whole case. In its discipline decision of July 8, 2026, OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal found the advertised price was not all-inclusive, contrary to s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 and ss. 4(2), 6(1) and 9(3) of the Code of Ethics.

Who breached what

The order names all four registrants individually. The dealer, registered since around March 1983, pays $3,000 within 90 days. Eric Hurlburt and Michael Hurlburt, salespersons since around May 1994 and April 1990 and Persons in Charge at all material times, each pay $1,000 for breaching ss. 6(2) and 9(3). Those sections are the Code’s mechanism for holding individuals to account when the dealership they run falls out of compliance. Lye, who conducted the trade, breached ss. 4(2), 6(2) and 9(3); his penalty is educational, the MVDA Key Elements Course with a pass mark of at least 80% within 90 days, and no fine.

The fifth order term goes past the named respondents: the dealer must offer to fund Key Elements for all of its current and future salespersons, the same forward-reaching scope the Tribunal attached in Cardoor and Stouffville Honda on the same docket day.

The case arrived at the Tribunal as a joint package under Rule 1.07: an Agreed Statement of Facts dated June 9, 2026, a proposed disposition, and a waiver of the oral hearing. Deb Mattina, Jon Lemaire and Paul Eros reviewed the written materials and found the outcome consistent with similar cases, with no risk of running contrary to the public interest.

The December echo

The penalty record reaches back to December. A discipline decision dated December 29, 2025 found the same dealer in contravention of ss. 4(2) and 9(3) for advertising a price that was not all-inclusive, that time carrying a $599 administrative fee, a $41.50 Carproof fee and a $12.50 OMVIC fee. The same decision found both Hurlburts in contravention of ss. 6(2) and 9(3) for the same failure of oversight.

Six months separated the two decisions, and the fee load at issue shrank from $653 across three line items to a single $22 charge. The December findings sat expressly on the penalty record, under the agreed facts’ own heading of “Agreed Facts Relevant to Penalty”, and both Persons in Charge now carry personal findings from each decision.