OMVIC fines Gran Turismo $5,000 after father acts as unregistered salesperson

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined 2812952 Ontario Inc. o/a Gran Turismo Auto Group $5,000 on April 2, 2026 over two breaches caught a year apart: an unregistered person trading vehicles while passing himself off as the dealer’s only registered salesperson, and a smaller all-in pricing breach on a 2017 Toyota Highlander Limited. Vincents Antonipillai, the registered salesperson and Person in Charge, was ordered to complete a one-on-one OMVIC Advertising Compliance Webinar. The dealer must offer to fund the MVDA Key Elements Course for every current and future salesperson on its roster.

The unregistered-salesperson finding sits in the same enforcement space as last month’s LAT decision in Maceka, Car Import Export, where the registrar revoked the dealer’s registration for letting an unregistered person handle trades. The remedy in Gran Turismo’s case is a fine and education, not revocation, but the underlying rule is identical.

The November 2024 mystery shop

On or before November 18, 2024, the dealer advertised a 2014 Toyota RAV4 LE at $11,488 plus sales taxes and licensing. The next day, an OMVIC investigator made inquiries about the vehicle while posing as a member of the public. A man who introduced himself with a handwritten pricing note also handed the investigator a business card identifying himself as “Vince Antonipillai.”

He was not Antonipillai. He was Antonipillai’s father, a former OMVIC registrant, who used shared office space with his son and acted independently without his son’s authorization. Antonipillai was the only salesperson registered to the dealer on that date, so the dealer failed to prevent his father from acting on its behalf. The Agreed Statement of Facts records this as a breach of s. 9(1) and s. 9(3) of the Code of Ethics.

The aggravating factor the panel highlighted was the impersonation itself: the unregistered person did not just talk to the investigator, he handed out a registered salesperson’s business card.

The March 2024 Toyota Highlander overcharge

A separate consumer transaction from earlier in 2024 produced the all-in pricing finding. On March 5, 2024, a buyer viewed an ad for a 2017 Toyota Highlander Limited AWD on the dealer’s website, listed at $27,888 plus HST and licensing. The buyer phoned Antonipillai, who quoted an out-the-door price of $32,290 inclusive of safety certification, a 36-day warranty, licensing, registration, and taxes, with a $52 plate fee if a new plate was needed. After negotiation, the parties settled at $32,000, paid as a $1,000 cash deposit and a $31,000 certified bank draft.

When the buyer picked up the vehicle on March 14, 2024, the Bill of Sale showed a $10 OMVIC fee added above the advertised price. The same Bill of Sale listed a total purchase price of $31,976.74, but the buyer was actually charged $32,000, a $23.26 overcharge against the dealer’s own paperwork. Both items together meant the advertised price was not all-inclusive, contrary to s. 4(2) and s. 9(3) of the Code of Ethics. The dealer made full restitution to the buyer before the hearing.

The all-in pricing rule in the regulation is s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08: the advertised price has to include every charge a dealer adds, including the $10 OMVIC fee. The textual carve-out the regulation names is sales tax (s. 36(10)); OMVIC’s longstanding interpretation also accepts licensing shown separately, as the dealer did here with the “plus HST and licensing” disclaimer.

What each respondent was found to have breached

The Agreed Statement of Facts and the panel’s findings split the breaches by respondent:

• Gran Turismo Auto Group breached s. 4(2) (truthful representations), s. 9(1) (conduct unbecoming), and s. 9(3) (best efforts to prevent error or misrepresentation).
• Antonipillai personally breached s. 6(2) (a salesperson must not cause the dealer to contravene the regulation), s. 9(1), and s. 9(3). The panel did not find that Antonipillai personally breached s. 4(2); only the dealer entity was held liable for the advertising representation.

The Reviewing Panel was Greg Flude (Public Member), Jon Lemaire (Registrant Member), and Paul Repar (Registrant Member). Flude signed the order on behalf of the other two. The matter proceeded under Rule 1.07 of the Discipline and Appeals Tribunal Rules of Practice with an Agreed Statement of Facts dated February 25, 2026.

How the panel arrived at the penalty

The aggravating factors recorded in the decision were the two distinct breaches: one impugned trade with an all-in pricing violation where the consumer was charged in excess of the advertised price, and the unregistered-salesperson finding aggravated by the impersonation. The mitigating factors were the parties’ acceptance of responsibility through the Agreed Statement of Facts, full restitution to the Toyota Highlander buyer, and the dealer and Antonipillai’s first appearance before the Discipline Tribunal.

The order has three pieces: a $5,000 dealer fine due within 180 days, a dealer obligation to offer to fund Key Elements completion for every salesperson on the roster within 90 days, and Antonipillai’s individual one-on-one OMVIC Advertising Compliance Webinar within 90 days. The advertising webinar is the unusual element in this disposition. OMVIC has been ordering individual education orders more often this year: Bolton Honda (false disclosure) and Hully Gully (all-in pricing) on the same April 2 docket both put the General Manager into the MVDA Key Elements Course. Gran Turismo is the first April 2 case ordering the narrower Advertising Compliance Webinar.

What to learn

• A dealer is responsible for who works on its premises. Section 9(1) and s. 9(3) of the Code of Ethics make a dealer accountable for unprofessional conduct and for failing to use best efforts to prevent misrepresentation. Letting an unregistered person sit in shared office space and trade with consumers walks into both. Shared space with a family member who is a former registrant is not a defence.
• Impersonation aggravates an unregistered-salesperson finding. Handing out a registered salesperson’s business card was the factor the panel called out as the aggravator. A dealer that suspects an unregistered person is using its name should escalate to OMVIC, not paper over the issue with a business-card handoff.
• Even a $10 fee above the advertised price is a s. 36(7) breach. The Bill of Sale here showed only a $10 OMVIC fee added on top, plus a $23.26 paperwork overcharge. Both were enough to ground a finding that the advertised price was not all-inclusive under s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 and s. 4(2) of the Code of Ethics. Restitution after the fact mitigates the penalty; it does not erase the breach.