OMVIC discipline case ·

OMVIC fines Hakim Auto Sales $6,000 for an unsafe rebuilt vehicle and withheld documents

OMVIC fined Hakim Auto Sales $6,000 after selling a certified rebuilt Subaru with obvious defects and failing to give OMVIC the documents it requested.

Penalty: $6,000 fine + MVDA Key Elements course + future-staff ACC funding offer MVDA s. 14(3) Code of Ethics s. 7(1) Code of Ethics s. 9(1) Code of Ethics s. 9(3) Code of Ethics s. 9(4)

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined Abdul Hakim Abdul Moqim $6,000 in a decision dated January 19, 2026. Moqim is a sole proprietor operating as Hakim Auto Sales. Most discipline orders on this site resolve by joint submission. Here the merits were admitted, but the penalty was fought out at a contested hearing, which makes the panel’s reasoning unusually useful.

Two incidents drew the referral. The first was a 2018 Subaru Outback sold to a consumer. The second was a failure to give OMVIC documents it asked for about a 2020 Honda Civic.

A certified car that should not have been sold

Moqim disclosed that the Subaru had been damaged beyond $3,000, declared a total loss, and rebuilt. He delivered it with a safety certificate representing it as fit to drive. That disclosure was honest, and the Tribunal credited it. The problem was the car. The buyer quickly found a broken headlight, a radiator attached with zip ties, an incorrect airbox, poor welds, and missing parts.

Moqim’s defence was that he had sent the vehicle to a qualified mechanic who certified it, and that he is not himself a mechanic. The Tribunal rejected that as a complete answer. There is no need for a mechanic’s training to notice a headlight that does not work, the panel reasoned, and a radiator held on with zip ties should have put him on notice that something was wrong with his mechanic. The decision draws a careful line: dealers are not required to double as mechanics, but they cannot sell a defective vehicle and pass the responsibility to a third party. In the panel’s words, “You sell it, you will take responsibility for it.” That duty is grounded in s. 9(4) of the Code of Ethics, which requires reasonable knowledge, skill, judgment, and competence in serving a customer. The same safety-certificate question runs through the Aurora Chrysler case, where a dealer’s own inspection centre certified a vehicle the Ministry later declared unfit.

Withholding documents from OMVIC

The second incident was narrower but, the Tribunal said, on the serious side. To resolve a consumer complaint about the Honda Civic, OMVIC made three requests for the wholesale and retail bills of sale, the safety inspection report, and the safety standards certificate. Moqim eventually produced the retail bill of sale and the certificate, but not the safety inspection report or the wholesale bill of sale. Failing to deliver documents to OMVIC as soon as practical breaches s. 14(3) of the MVDA. Record-keeping, the panel noted, is at the heart of accountability, and a slow or partial response to OMVIC undermines its ability to investigate and mediate complaints.

How the panel set the penalty

OMVIC asked for $7,500, split as $4,500 for the unsafe vehicle and $3,000 for the documents. Moqim asked for $2,000 total. The panel landed at $6,000, plus the MVDA Key Elements Course, and an order that if Moqim hires sales staff in future he must offer to fund their Automotive Certification Course. Two threads earned him a discount from OMVIC’s number: he had made full history disclosure and reversed the Subaru sale to make the consumer whole, and his admissions on the merits saved a contested hearing. The panel also restated that a Code of Ethics penalty should not read like a licensing fee or a cost of doing business. The findings were under s. 7(1), s. 9(1), and s. 9(3) of the Code of Ethics.

What to learn

  • Certification does not transfer the risk. Under s. 9(4), the dealer stays responsible for roadworthiness. Treat obvious defects after a safety certificate as a reason to recheck the car and your inspection provider before it goes out the door.
  • Answer OMVIC fully and on time. Three requests and still-missing documents is its own breach under s. 14(3) of the MVDA, separate from whatever the underlying complaint is about.
  • Honest disclosure and remediation still count. Moqim’s upfront history disclosure and his decision to reverse the sale moved the penalty down. They did not erase the breach, but they mattered.