OMVIC fines Cardoor $12,000 for stacking doc and PDI fees on four advertised prices, dealer exits retail

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal ordered Cardoor Inc. to pay a $12,000 fine in a decision dated July 8, 2026, after the dealer sold four vehicles for between $2,010.50 and $2,898 more than their advertised prices. Mark Eleoff, a salesperson since December 2015 and at all material times the dealer’s Officer and Person in Charge, must complete the MVDA Key Elements Course within 90 days, and Cardoor must offer to fund the same course for all current and future salespersons. Only Ottawa Chrysler’s $13,000 order tops this fine among the discipline cases this site has covered. The order proceeded on an Agreed Statement of Facts dated June 9, 2026 with a jointly proposed disposition under Rule 1.07, no oral hearing.

Four cars, one recipe

Cardoor, registered as a dealer since around April 2021, had been reminded by email on or about February 1, 2023 to advertise all-inclusive prices as s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 requires. The Agreed Statement of Facts then walks through four 2025 sales that followed the same pattern:

• 2020 Tesla Model 3, advertised at $20,977, sold with a $1,286.50 documentation fee, a $999 pre-delivery inspection (PDI) fee, and a $12.50 OMVIC fee added: $2,298 over the advertised price.
• 2021 Audi TT, advertised at $38,999, sold on or about July 5, 2025 with $999 doc, $999 PDI, and $12.50 OMVIC fees added: $2,010.50 over.
• 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan, advertised at $19,789, sold on or about July 19, 2025 with $1,086.50 doc, $999 “Installation and Inspection”, and $12.50 OMVIC fees added: $2,098 over.
• 2021 Nissan Sentra, advertised at $20,685, sold on or about July 4, 2025 with $1,086.50 doc, $1,799 “Installation and Inspection”, and $12.50 OMVIC fees added: $2,898 over.

Each sale, the parties agreed, made the advertised price not all-inclusive, contrary to s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 and ss. 4(2) and 9(3) of the Code of Ethics. The labels on the added charges are the familiar cast: documentation, PDI, installation, inspection. Under s. 36(7), an advertised price has to fold all of that in. A dealer who wants to charge $999 for PDI can, but the advertised number has to already include it.

The referral originally alleged more. The Agreed Statement of Facts records the withdrawal of paragraphs 10 to 13, 18 to 21, and 26 to 29 of the Notice of Referral to Discipline dated December 29, 2025.

The PIC wears the second finding

Eleoff’s findings run through the accountability chain the Tribunal has used all year: as Person in Charge he failed to ensure the dealer conducted business in compliance with the Act, its regulations, and the Code of Ethics, personally contravening ss. 6(2) and 9(3) of the Code of Ethics. There is no personal fine; his order is educational.

The wholesale exit

The reasons contain one sentence worth more than the fine amount. The panel (Deb Mattina, Jon Lemaire, Paul Eros) wrote that its acceptance of the joint disposition was heavily influenced by the dealer’s redesignation to sell only in the wholesale market, dealer to dealer or at auction. Retail advertising rules like s. 36(7) protect consumers; a dealer that no longer retails is a smaller ongoing risk, and the panel priced that into accepting the deal. It is the first order on this site to treat a retail exit as the decisive factor in accepting a proposed disposition. Cases like Riverside Chevrolet and Stouffville Hyundai leaned on education and conditions while the dealers kept selling to the public; here the dealer left the retail market instead.

What to learn

• Advertised price means the whole price. s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 leaves no room for doc, PDI, installation, or OMVIC fees on top of the advertised number, and OMVIC treats each sale as a separate breach when totalling the harm.
• A warning email counts against you later. The February 2023 all-in pricing reminder appears in the Agreed Statement of Facts for the same reason warning letters appeared in Niagara Falls Nissan and Riverside: prior notice converts sloppiness into something the Tribunal fines at the top of the range.
• The PIC answers personally. Under s. 6(2) of the Code of Ethics, the Person in Charge picks up personal findings and a course order even where the money lands on the corporation.