OMVIC fines Nawab Motors $2,500 and its Sales Manager $500 after a salesperson told a mystery shopper a $999 certification fee was mandatory on a $17,999 Buick Encore

2234105 Ontario Inc. o/a Nawab Motors had advertised a 2018 Buick Encore on its website at $17,999. On or about November 19, 2025, an OMVIC representative posing as a consumer asked about it, and salesperson Arunpreet Singh handed over a typed note and indicated that the selling price was $17,999 plus HST and a $999 fee. He explained that the $999 was a certification fee, and that it was mandatory. On May 27, 2026, OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined the dealer $2,500 on an agreed statement of facts dated April 17, 2026.

A mandatory $999 had to be inside the $17,999

The $999 was added above the advertised $17,999, so the advertised price was not all-inclusive, contrary to s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 and to ss. 4(2) and 9(3) of the Code of Ethics. Under s. 36(7) the advertised price must be the total the buyer pays for the vehicle and every charge related to the trade. Whether the fee was for a safety standards certificate or something else, the agreed facts do not say; the label the salesperson used was “certification.”

The site’s Need A Car Used Car Superstore post carries the other version of the same problem, a small-print line saying certification was available for $695 on vehicles advertised as not certified. At Nawab Motors the fee was not optional and was added above the advertised price.

The Sales Manager’s finding cites honesty, integrity and fairness

Barjinder Singh, a salesperson since around July 2018 and at all material times the dealer’s Sales Manager and Person in Charge, was found to have failed to ensure the dealer complied with the Act, the regulations and the Code. The sections attached to that failure are s. 6(2), the salesperson’s duty not to cause the dealer to contravene the law, and s. 9(2), the clause requiring a registrant to “act with honesty, integrity and fairness” in carrying on business. Most Person in Charge findings on this site cite s. 9(3), best efforts to prevent error, and this is the first to cite 9(2). His penalty is a $500 fine and the MVDA Key Elements course at 80 percent or better, both within 90 days of May 27.

Arunpreet Singh, a salesperson since around June 2024, was found to have traded the vehicle contrary to ss. 4(2) and 9(3) and to have caused the dealer’s contravention, breaching s. 6(2) and 9(3) personally. He must pass Key Elements at 80 percent within the same 90 days, and no fine was imposed on him. The dealer, registered since around February 2012, was found in breach of ss. 4(2) and 9(3), fined $2,500, and ordered to offer every current and future salesperson funding for the Key Elements course. The Reviewing Panel was Public Member Sherry Darvish with Registrant Members Joe Malfara and Chris Pinelli, deciding under Rule 1.07 on the agreed facts, a jointly proposed disposition and a waiver of oral hearing. The agreed facts record that the registrants told the Registrar they had taken proactive steps: making Arunpreet Singh and the other salespeople aware of the all-in pricing requirement, reviewing the internal advertising procedure, and putting steps in place for trades to follow the rules.

The Panel’s reasons run to two sentences. The penalty serves general and specific deterrence, the Panel is hopeful that a future inspection will find the dealer in compliance, and the penalty is consistent with the Tribunal’s previous decisions. Chenier Motors and Stouffville Hyundai were fined $3,000 and $3,500 the same day. Nawab Motors’ $2,500 is the smallest of the three dealer fines, and it is the only one of the three cases in which a salesperson described the add-on to the shopper as mandatory. It is also the only one of the three where the dealer’s funding offer to its salespeople is for Key Elements rather than the Automotive Certification Course.