OMVIC fines South Oakville Chrysler and Reg Nimeck $3,000 each over $162.50 in fees, his fifth all-in pricing finding since 2015

On or about January 22, 2025, an OMVIC representative posing as a member of the public asked salesperson Mohamad Ghazwan Jouanieh at South Oakville Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Ltd. about the cash price of a 2018 Jeep Compass Trailhawk advertised at $18,995 plus taxes and licensing. Jouanieh told her the only addition would be taxes. The payment worksheet he then prepared on his computer carried two more charges. On September 15, 2026, OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined the dealer $3,000, fined its Director and Person in Charge, Reg L Nimeck, another $3,000, and ordered Nimeck and Jouanieh to pass the MVDA Key Elements Course. The agreed facts list four earlier Discipline Committee findings against Nimeck, each involving all-in price advertising at another dealer, which makes this decision his fifth.

Two lines marked “Fees”

The shopper told Jouanieh her daughter had a budget of $500 a month, and he worked out a biweekly payment on screen. She asked to photograph the screen and he agreed. After a closer review of the photo, she noticed two charges above the advertised price, one of $150.00 and one of $71.50, each described as “Fees”. She texted Jouanieh to ask what they were for. He answered that “71 dollars is licensing fees and Omvic fee” and “[a]nd 150 is gas” (paras [12] to [20]).

The agreed facts count the $12.50 OMVIC fee and the $150 gas fee, $162.50 above the advertised price (para [21]). The parties agreed that the price was therefore not all-inclusive, contrary to s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 and ss. 4(2) and 9(3) of the Code of Ethics. Section 36(7) makes an advertised price the total of what the buyer pays for the vehicle and “all other charges related to the trade in the vehicle, including, if any, charges for freight, charges for inspection before delivery of the vehicle, fees, levies and taxes”, subject to subsections (9) and (10).

The panel found the dealer in breach of Code ss. 4(2) and 9(3), Nimeck of ss. 6(2) and 9(3) as the Person in Charge who failed to ensure the dealer complied, and Jouanieh of ss. 4(2), 6(2) and 9(3), both for the way he represented the price and for failing to ensure the dealer complied.

Four earlier findings at two other dealers

Nimeck has been registered as a salesperson since around March 1983. The agreed facts on past discipline history set out his record with two dealers the decision does not name, called Dealer A and Dealer B:

• March 7, 2015. The Discipline Committee found that he and Dealer A contravened the Code of Ethics. Among other things, three Dealer A advertisements failed the all-in rule in s. 36(7). As an officer and director of Dealer A, he was ordered to comply with the Act and Standards of Business Practice (para [25]).
• March 10, 2015. He and Dealer B, over one advertisement. He was an officer and director of Dealer B and was again ordered to comply (para [26]).
• August 30, 2018. He and Dealer B again. Among other things, one advertisement failed the rule. He was Person in Charge of Dealer B and was ordered to comply (para [27]).
• October 16, 2019. He and Dealer B, over one advertisement. As an officer and Person in Charge, he was ordered to pay a $4,000 fine and to retake the OMVIC certification course (para [28]).

South Oakville, registered as a dealer since around October 2014, had its own reminders. A representative of the Registrar emailed Nimeck about the dealer’s all-in obligations under s. 36 on or about August 23, 2016. A representative reminded the dealer again at a books and records inspection on or about November 24, 2016, and the Registrar sent the dealer a warning letter on or about February 12, 2024 (paras [8] to [10]).

“Minimal,” and accepted

The panel was Aviva Harari, the Chair and a public member, with registrant members Joe Malfara and Mike Ball. The hearing took place on July 28, 2026, virtually on consent, on an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty. Jonathan Hou, counsel for OMVIC, told the panel the penalty was within the range of comparable decisions and noted that the conduct was admitted and related to a single transaction. Justin Jakubiak, for the dealer and both registrants, stressed the time since Nimeck’s earlier breaches, the dealer’s own history and the early resolution of the referral (paras [31] and [32]).

The test the panel applied comes from the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, as quoted in Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303: a joint submission is accepted unless it would be contrary to the public interest or bring the administration of justice into disrepute (paras [34] and [35]). The panel wrote that, despite repeated and ongoing education, warnings and publications, “dealers and registrants are aware of the requirements and the consequences for breaching them” (para [36]). It put the fines on the dealer and Nimeck “within the low range given previous conduct,” and added: “While it is the panel’s opinion that the penalty as set out in the JSOP is minimal, it does not meet the criteria for rejection” (para [37]).

The order

Each term runs 90 calendar days from the order:

• the dealer pays a $3,000 fine;
• Nimeck pays a $3,000 fine;
• Nimeck and Jouanieh each pass the MVDA Key Elements Course with a grade of at least 80 per cent;
• the dealer offers to fund the Automotive Certification Course for every current and future salesperson it employs.

Jouanieh, registered since around September 2021, was not fined. Nimeck’s last finding before this one, in October 2019, carried a $4,000 fine and a retake of the certification course.