OMVIC fines Sarnia Hyundai $4,500 after a mystery shop caught fee-stacking on an EV and a salesperson registered to a different dealer

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined Johns Corporation o/a Sarnia Hyundai $4,500 on April 13, 2026 after a single mystery shop produced two separate kinds of breach: a quote that added fees on top of an advertised price, and the discovery that the person doing the quoting was not registered as a salesperson with the dealer at all. General Manager and Person in Charge Andrew Lirette was fined $500. Lirette and salesperson Alyssia Swarath (Ingram) must each complete the MVDA Key Elements Course with a passing grade of at least 80% within 90 days, and the dealer must offer to fund the same course for every salesperson it employs.

A year before the breach, an OMVIC inspector had warned the dealership about Swarath’s registration. By name.

The mystery shop on the Kona Electric

On or before July 21, 2025, Sarnia Hyundai advertised a white 2024 Hyundai Kona Electric Preferred on its website at a selling price of $36,998 plus taxes and fees. Two days later an OMVIC representative posing as a consumer inquired about it.

Swarath, acting for the dealer, handed over a worksheet with two payment paths. On the cash option, $71.50 in fees sat on top of the advertised price: a $59 licence fee and a $12.50 OMVIC fee, plus HST. The licence fee can be itemised separately; the order’s complaint is specific that “the $12.50 OMVIC fee is listed in addition to the advertised selling price, permitted license fee and HST.” On the finance option, the worksheet listed a further $890.50 in added fees. Swarath gave no explanation for what those were.

Section 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 requires an advertised price to be the total a buyer pays, folding in freight, pre-delivery inspection, fees and levies. A regulator-mandated $12.50 transaction fee belongs inside the $36,998, and so does whatever lived inside that $890.50. The panel found the advertised price was not all-inclusive, contrary to s. 36(7) and to s. 4(2) and s. 9(3) of the Code of Ethics.

The salesperson registered to someone else

The second breach surfaced from the same transaction. Swarath had been registered as a salesperson since September 2023, but at all material times she was registered with a different dealer. Section 4(5) of the MVDA is one sentence: “A salesperson shall not trade a motor vehicle on behalf of a motor vehicle dealer unless the salesperson is registered to that dealer.”

Registration under the Act is not a portable credential. It binds a specific salesperson to a specific dealer, which is what lets the Registrar know who is accountable for whom. By quoting the Kona on Sarnia Hyundai’s behalf, Swarath contravened s. 4(5) along with s. 9(1), s. 9(3) and s. 6(2) of the Code, and the dealer breached s. 9(1) and s. 9(3) for permitting the trade. A salesperson change application to move her registration to Sarnia Hyundai has since been submitted.

What makes the dealer’s position hard to defend is the calendar. On July 30, 2024, an OMVIC inspector had cautioned Lirette, acting for the dealer, about its obligation to ensure all salespersons, including Swarath specifically, were registered with the dealer before trading. The mystery shop that caught her trading unregistered came almost exactly a year later.

Lirette, a salesperson since January 2016 and the Person in Charge of day-to-day operations, took personal findings under s. 6(2), s. 9(1) and s. 9(3) for failing to keep the dealership compliant. His $500 personal fine mirrors the pattern in Riverside Chevrolet, where the named individual paid a four-figure-or-less amount alongside a larger dealer fine.

How the panel weighed it

The Reviewing Panel (Sherry Darvish, public member, signing on behalf of registrant members Joe Malfara and Mike Ball) accepted the joint submission on an Agreed Statement of Facts dated February 6, 2026, under Rule 1.07 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice. Mitigating factors: no evidence of actual consumer harm, a first referral to the Discipline Tribunal for the dealer, the settlement itself, and the respondents’ acceptance of responsibility. The parties also told the Registrar that salespersons have since been briefed on all-in pricing and the internal advertising process reviewed.

The unregistered-salesperson finding lands this case in company the site has covered before. In Maceka, running an unregistered salesperson contributed to a registration revocation at the Licence Appeal Tribunal. In Gran Turismo, an unregistered individual handed business cards to mystery shoppers. Sarnia Hyundai is the milder variant, a registered salesperson parked at the wrong dealer, but the statute treats the trade the same way: she was not registered to the dealer she traded for.

What to learn

• MVDA s. 4(5) ties a salesperson’s registration to one dealer. A registrant in good standing at another store still cannot quote, negotiate, or close for you until the transfer application is processed.
• The $12.50 OMVIC transaction fee is a charge related to the trade and belongs inside the advertised price under s. 36(7). Listing it as an add-on, even labelled honestly, is the breach.
• A by-name caution from an OMVIC inspector is the cheapest compliance audit you will ever get. Sarnia Hyundai had twelve months of notice about Swarath’s registration, and the change application that would have fixed it only came afterwards.