OMVIC fines The Loan Arranger $6,500 for holding $46,433 in customer warranty money past the deadline

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined Black Palm Aviaries of Canada Inc., which trades as The Loan Arranger / Dealer Partners Group, $6,500 on December 29, 2025. The case is not about advertising or hidden vehicle history. It is about money the dealer collected from customers for extended warranties and then sat on, well past the deadline to hand it over to the warranty provider. The dealer must also offer to fund the Automotive Certification Course for every current and future salesperson. The order rests on an Agreed Statement of Facts dated November 24, 2025.

The money was late three months running

When a dealer facilitates the sale of an extended warranty, the proceeds are not the dealer’s to keep. Section 47(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 requires the dealer to remit those proceeds to the warranty provider inside a fixed window. A June 3, 2025 books and records inspection found the dealer missed it three months in a row:

• January 2025: $18,899.27 owed to the warranty provider, remitted April 4, 2025.
• February 2025: $11,645.78 owed, remitted April 22, 2025.
• March 2025: about 20 extended warranty products, $15,888.38 owed, remitted May 23, 2025.

Each remittance was past the 30-day window. The total held late was $46,433.33. The panel found this breached s. 47(7) along with the financial responsibility duty in s. 3(1) of the Code of Ethics and the professionalism duties in s. 9(1) and s. 9(3).

The remittance rule exists because the warranty the customer paid for is only as good as the provider being funded. A dealer that collects the premium but delays paying the provider creates exactly the kind of gap that leaves a buyer holding a worthless contract if the dealer fails. That is the same consumer risk behind OMVIC’s extended warranty obligations bulletin and its Assureway gap insurance warning.

A caution letter a year earlier

The aggravating factor here is timing. During a September 28, 2023 inspection, the Registrar reminded the dealer to remit warranty payments in line with s. 47 of O. Reg. 333/08. The Registrar followed up with a caution letter on February 20, 2024 telling the dealer and its staff to adhere to the warranty remittance requirements. The late remittances in early 2025 came roughly a year after that caution. The panel singled this out: the proposed penalty was higher than comparison cases precisely because “those cases do not involve a recent caution specifically regarding warranty remittances.”

The trade-in with no paper trail

The inspection turned up a second, smaller breach. On April 11, 2025 the dealer sold a 2017 Mazda5 and took a vehicle in on trade from the buyer, but kept no documents at all about the traded-in vehicle. Section 43(3) of O. Reg. 333/08 sets out the contract and record requirements for trade-ins. Keeping nothing breached that section and the professionalism duties in s. 9(1) and 9(3).

Why $6,500

The panel weighed the $46,433 held late over three months, the trade-in records the dealer failed to keep, and, against the dealer, the recent caution on the very same remittance issue. In mitigation it noted the acceptance of responsibility through the Agreed Statement of Facts and that this was the dealer’s first appearance before the Discipline Tribunal in sixteen years as a registrant. The result was a fine above the usual range for this kind of breach, driven by the ignored caution.

What to learn

• Warranty proceeds are trust money on a clock. Section 47(7) requires the dealer to remit extended warranty proceeds to the provider within the prescribed period. Using that money as float, even briefly, is a financial responsibility breach under s. 3(1) of the Code, because the customer’s warranty depends on the provider actually being paid.
• A caution letter is the dealer’s last cheap warning. The penalty sat above comparison cases only because the Registrar had cautioned the dealer about warranty remittance about a year earlier. Once OMVIC has put the issue in writing, repeating it converts a fixable problem into an aggravating factor.
• Trade-ins need a paper trail. Section 43(3) sets record requirements for vehicles taken in on trade. Keeping no documents on the trade-in is its own breach, separate from whatever else is wrong with the deal.