OMVIC fines Hully Gully $5,500 over hidden fees on two Honda motorcycle sales

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined Hully Gully (London) Ltd $5,500 on April 2, 2026 after an inspection found the dealer had overcharged buyers on two motorcycle sales by up to $987.60 above the advertised price. John Marchand, the dealer’s General Manager and designated Person in Charge, was ordered to complete the MVDA Key Elements Course with a passing grade of at least 80%. The Dealer was further ordered to offer to fund the same course for every current and future salesperson on its roster.

The advertising rules that applied to these two motorcycle sales are the same all-in pricing rules at issue in Bolton Honda’s car-sale case on the same April 2 docket.

What the inspection found

A representative of the Registrar attended the dealer’s premises on March 25, 2025 and reviewed the books. Two transactions stood out.

2024 Honda CBR650R. Advertised at $11,499 plus tax and licensing on or before February 1, 2025, with an advertisement tag listing additional fees for freight, “build & PDI”, and admin. The retail bill of sale dated February 1, 2025 showed the $11,499 base plus $295 pre-delivery, $550 freight, $119 admin, $11.10 enviro, and a $12.50 OMVIC fee. Total above the ad: $987.60. The advertisement also offered financing at 8.99% for 72 months without disclosing the cost of borrowing.

2024 Honda XR150LR. Advertised at $4,099 plus tax and licensing on or before March 15, 2025, with the same tag-fee shape. The bill of sale dated March 15, 2025 showed $285 pre-delivery, $400 freight, $119 admin, $11.10 enviro, and $12.50 OMVIC fee, less a $250 “discount.” Net total above the ad: $577.60. Same undisclosed cost of borrowing on the financing line.

The Tribunal’s record notes that OMVIC had sent the dealer a compliance reminder letter on December 20, 2023, fifteen months before the inspection found the same issue. The reminder cited s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 and the Code of Ethics.

What the rules require

Section 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 is the all-in pricing rule. A dealer that advertises a vehicle has to advertise the total amount the buyer will pay, with all charges (including freight, PDI, admin, enviro, and the OMVIC fee) inside the advertised price. Tax and licensing are the only items the rule allows to be shown separately.

The Code of Ethics under O. Reg. 332/08 layers two obligations on top:

• s. 4(2) requires every representation a dealer makes about a trade in motor vehicles, including advertising, to be “legal, decent, ethical and truthful.” An ad that states a price the buyer cannot actually pay is not truthful.
• s. 9(3) requires registrants to use best efforts to prevent error, misrepresentation, fraud, or any unethical practice in respect of a trade. The dealer’s reliance on tag-fee disclosure after a compliance letter from OMVIC did not satisfy that duty.

For Marchand personally, the breach was s. 6(2): a registered salesperson shall not do or omit to do anything that causes the dealer to contravene the regulation. As General Manager and Person in Charge, his role was to make sure the dealership’s advertising and bills of sale lined up with the rule. They did not.

How the panel arrived at the penalty

The matter proceeded under Rule 1.07 of the Discipline and Appeals Tribunal Rules of Practice, which lets a panel decide on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts, a joint submission on penalty, and a written waiver of an oral hearing. 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 reviewing panel listed the aggravating factors as the existence of two impugned trades and the December 2023 compliance letter sent fifteen months before the inspection. The mitigating factors were the parties’ acceptance of responsibility through the Agreed Statement of Facts and the fact that this was the dealer and Marchand’s first appearance before the Tribunal.

The fine of $5,500 against the dealer landed inside the range the Tribunal has imposed on similar two-trade all-in-pricing matters at this size of dealership. Marchand’s individual order is education-focused: complete the MVDA Key Elements Course with a passing grade of 80% within 90 days. The dealer’s training obligation runs further. It must offer to fund Key Elements completion for any salesperson on the roster, current or future, also within 90 days.

What to learn

• Tag-fee advertising is the breach. Section 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 requires the advertised price to be all-inclusive. Listing freight, PDI, admin, enviro, and OMVIC fees on a separate tag is the exact pattern the rule forbids, and it has been the subject of repeated discipline cases including Bolton Honda and Gran Turismo Auto Group on the same April 2 docket.
• A compliance letter from OMVIC starts a timer. The fifteen-month gap between the December 2023 letter and the March 2025 inspection was treated as an aggravating factor here. A registrant who receives a compliance reminder and does not change advertising practice should expect a follow-up.
• Financing disclosures are a separate exposure. The cost-of-borrowing omission was noted in the Agreed Statement of Facts but did not drive the penalty. A future panel could treat that omission as its own Consumer Protection Act issue if it appears alongside an all-in-price breach.