OMVIC fines Guelph Hyundai $9,000 for unregistered sales, hidden rental history, and added fees

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined GH Motors LP o/a Guelph Hyundai $9,000 on May 27, 2026. The order, signed June 9, 2026, followed an August 2025 inspection that turned up three separate problems at the franchise store: a salesperson who kept selling after his registration lapsed, two vehicles sold without telling the buyer they had been daily rentals, and two more sold for more than the advertised price. The dealer accepted the facts in an Agreed Statement of Facts and a $9,000 fine; Person in Charge Jawad Hakim agreed to redo the MVDA Key Elements Course.

What sets this case apart from the usual single-issue discipline order is timing. OMVIC had already warned this dealer. A representative reminded the store about daily-rental disclosure after a September 2021 inspection, and on February 24, 2025 the Registrar sent a formal warning letter spelling out both the all-in price obligation under s. 36(7) and the rental-disclosure obligation. The breaches below all happened with that warning letter already on file.

A salesperson selling after his registration lapsed

Spartak Jeshili’s salesperson registration lapsed on or around March 4, 2025. He then sold five vehicles, three Palisades and two Santa Cruzes, while unregistered. A dealer cannot let that happen: s. 4(3) of the MVDA says a motor vehicle dealer shall not retain the services of a salesperson unless the salesperson is registered in that capacity. The duty sits on the dealer, not just the individual, which is why the dealer entity carried this finding. It is the same rule that drove the revocation in the Maceka LAT decision and the by-name caution in Sarnia Hyundai.

Two daily rentals sold without disclosure

The dealer sold a 2023 Audi Q7 and a 2022 Kia Rio without disclosing in writing on the bill of sale that each had previously been used as a daily rental. Prior daily-rental use is a mandatory written disclosure under s. 5 of the Code of Ethics and s. 36(5) of O. Reg. 333/08. It matters to buyers because rental vehicles tend to see harder early use, and it is exactly the disclosure OMVIC reminded this dealer about back in 2021. The same rental-disclosure rule anchored the Pierson Motors case.

Fees added above the advertised price

On two vehicles, a 2020 Hyundai advertised at $15,977 and a 2024 Maverick advertised at $37,059, the dealer added a $599 documentation fee and a $12.50 OMVIC fee at the point of sale that were not in the advertised price. That is the all-in pricing breach: s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 requires the advertised price to include every fee a dealer charges, sales tax aside. The dealer said the $599 was to be credited back, but had no documentation showing that happened. Advertising a number the buyer cannot actually pay is the breach the rule targets, and it engaged s. 4(2) and s. 9(3) of the Code of Ethics.

Who breached what

The Reviewing Panel (Sherry Darvish, Joe Malfara, Chris Pinelli) split the findings. The dealer breached s. 4(3) of the Act plus s. 4(2), s. 5, and s. 9(3) of the Code of Ethics. Jawad Hakim, as the Person in Charge of day-to-day activities, breached s. 6(2) (a salesperson must not cause the dealer to contravene the regulation) and s. 9(3). The dealer must also offer to fund the MVDA Key Elements Course for every current and future salesperson.

What to learn

• Track your salespeople’s registration dates. Under s. 4(3), a lapsed salesperson who keeps selling is the dealer’s breach, not just the individual’s. Build a renewal calendar for the whole sales floor.
• Daily-rental history is a written disclosure. Section 5 of the Code of Ethics and s. 36(5) both require it on the bill of sale, in writing, every time.
• Two reminders become a record that follows you. OMVIC flagged rental disclosure to this dealer after a 2021 inspection and put the all-in and rental rules in a formal warning letter in February 2025. Repeating the same breaches after that kind of documented notice is part of what turns a routine file into a $9,000 one.

Update: a new referral to discipline, July 8, 2026

Six weeks after the $9,000 order, the Registrar referred Guelph Hyundai back to the Discipline Tribunal in a Notice of Referral to Discipline dated July 8, 2026. The new referral alleges the same two categories of breach as the case above, arising from conduct in February 2026, before the May 27 decision but a year after the February 2025 warning letter.

The particulars allege that on or before February 18, 2026 the dealer advertised four vehicles, a 2023 Hyundai Tucson Preferred, two 2022 Hyundai Elantra Preferreds and a 2022 Jeep Wrangler Sahara, without disclosing in writing that each was previously a daily rental, contrary to s. 36(5). They further allege that during a February 19, 2026 mystery shop on the Tucson, advertised at $27,791 plus licensing and taxes, the dealer’s printed worksheet added a $22 OMVIC fee on top of the advertised price, contrary to s. 36(7), engaging s. 4(2) and s. 9(3) of the Code of Ethics.

These are allegations in a referral, not findings. The Tribunal has not heard the matter, the dealer may respond in writing within 15 days of service, and no outcome should be assumed. If the Tribunal does find breaches, it can fine up to $25,000 per party, order further education, or require the dealer to arrange and fund courses for its salespersons.