Halton Honda general manager Shamas Ahmad fined $2,500 for complying months late with a 2024 discipline order

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined Shamas Ahmad $2,500 on August 26, 2026 for being late with an earlier discipline order, not for anything done on a deal. Ahmad is a general manager and Person in Charge of the day-to-day activities of 805658 Ontario Inc. o/a Halton Honda, and was first registered as a salesperson on or about October 21, 2002. A 2024 decision had given him and the dealership 90 days to complete two education steps. According to the Agreed Statement of Facts, his own course came about nine months after that deadline and the dealership’s step about sixteen months after it. The only finding is a breach of s. 9(1) of the Code of Ethics, which bars any act or omission that “would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional or unbecoming of a registrant.”

The decision was made in writing under Rule 1.07 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, on an Agreed Statement of Facts dated July 22, 2026, a jointly proposed disposition and a waiver of an oral hearing. The Reviewing Panel was Aviva Harari (public member), who signed on behalf of registrant members Jon Lemaire and Joe Malfara. The fine is payable within 90 calendar days of the order. OMVIC’s table records no appeal.

The 2024 order

On or about November 15, 2024, the Discipline Tribunal found that Ahmad had breached s. 6(2) and s. 9(3) of the Code of Ethics, and that Halton Honda had breached s. 4(2) and s. 9(3). The 2026 decision attaches the 2024 one as a schedule, but the published document stops after its four pages, so what the 2024 findings were about is not in it.

Two orders from the 2024 decision matter here. Each ran 90 calendar days from November 8, 2024:

• Ahmad was to complete the MVDA Key Elements Course.
• Halton Honda was to offer all current and future salespersons it employs a funded Automotive Certification Course.

The 2026 decision dates the 2024 decision November 15 but counts both deadlines from November 8.

What the agreed facts say happened

• January 9, 2025. A representative of the Registrar emailed Ahmad reminding him of the approaching deadlines, February 7, 2025 among them.
• January 18, 2025. The representative received confirmation that Halton Honda had offered the course, but to two salespersons rather than all of them.
• February 7, 2025. The representative asked Ahmad to confirm he had completed Key Elements, with a reply requested by February 11.
• October 22, 2025, on or about. Ahmad’s registration was suspended in relation to his failure to comply with the 2024 decision.
• November 6, 2025, on or about. Ahmad completed the Key Elements course, “approximately 9-months” after the missed deadline.
• June 9, 2026, on or about. Ahmad, on behalf of Halton Honda, confirmed that the funded course had been offered to all its salespersons, “approximately 16-months” after the deadline.

The agreed facts record him as currently registered as a salesperson to Halton Honda.

One registrant, two failures

Halton Honda is not a party to the 2026 decision. The agreed facts put both delays on Ahmad. Paragraph [14] says he failed to comply with the 2024 decision in a timely manner. Paragraph [15] says that, as Person in Charge, he failed to ensure the dealer complied in a timely manner. Each is a contravention of s. 9(1), and the panel found the one breach on both.

Paragraph [15] matters beyond this file. The order was the dealership’s, to make an offer to its own sales staff, and the agreed facts hold the Person in Charge answerable for its lateness. The dealership’s delay became part of his own discipline record.

Why a completed course still drew a fine

The reasons open by noting that the referral “stems from a failure to comply with a previous NORD” and that this was not the first time Ahmad had been before the Tribunal. The panel then weighed one point in his favour: he completed Key Elements before the Notice of Referral to Discipline in this matter issued. After it issued, OMVIC received confirmation that the Automotive Certification Course had been offered to all salespersons at the dealer’s cost. The panel called the agreed fine “consistent with fines ordered in similar matters” and said it satisfies specific and general deterrence.

How it compares with Joseph Rowe

The closest case on the site is Joseph Rowe, an Orillia Mazda salesperson fined on April 29, 2026. The two share a lot: a Key Elements order that went unmet, a finding under s. 9(1) alone, a written Rule 1.07 settlement, the same $2,500 fine payable in 90 days, and Aviva Harari signing for the panel.

The timing of the course is where they part. Rowe’s panel found that he completed the required education only once the referral in his case had issued, called his failure to comply “a significant aggravating factor”, and gave his settlement “minimal consideration”. Ahmad finished his course before his referral issued, and the panel took that into account. The fine came out the same. Ahmad’s decision also records two things Rowe’s does not: a suspension along the way, and a dealership order not confirmed as met until about seven months after his own course was done.