OMVIC fines Stouffville Hyundai $3,500 after a handwritten quote added $262 to the advertised price

A handwritten quote is what did it. On January 29, 2026, an OMVIC representative posing as a customer asked Stouffville Hyundai about a 2023 Hyundai Venue advertised at a finance price of $20,586. Salesperson Diana Ji-Won Zare wrote out a quote by hand: selling price $19,488, plus a $599 admin fee, a $699 etching fee, a $39.95 Carfax fee, and a $22 OMVIC fee, for a total she recorded as $20,848. That is $262 more than the advertised price. On May 27, 2026, OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined ZAG (Whitville) Sales Limited o/a Stouffville Hyundai $3,500 for it.

The advertised number was itself a composite: $21,788, plus fees of $699 and $599, minus a $2,500 discount, landing on $20,586. The quote Zare handed over rebuilt the price from a lower base and stacked the fees again, plus two more. Under s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08, the advertised price has to be the number the customer can actually pay, so quoting above it, by any amount, is the breach.

Ten weeks after a formal warning letter

A representative of the Registrar had reminded the dealer about all-in pricing during an inspection back on August 6, 2020, and on November 17, 2025 the Registrar issued a formal warning letter on the same obligation. The mystery shop that produced the $20,848 quote came about ten weeks after that letter, which goes a long way to explaining why the response was a referral to the Tribunal rather than a third reminder. The same pattern, breach on the heels of a documented warning, ran through Guelph Hyundai on the same May 27 docket, and through Autohouse Kingston in the April 13 batch before it.

The dealer told OMVIC it had been aware of discrepancies between its internal pricing system and its website pricing and had been working with its website provider on the problem. After the Notice of Referral to Discipline arrived on April 21, 2026, it instructed its salespeople to quote only from website pricing. The explanation sits in the Agreed Statement of Facts alongside the breach it explains; the quote still went out above the advertised price.

Three respondents, three duty levels

The order, decided on an Agreed Statement of Facts dated May 11, 2026 under Rule 1.07 (written materials, no oral hearing), reaches everyone in the chain:

• The dealer breached s. 4(2) (representations must be legal, decent, ethical and truthful), s. 6(1) (a dealer must ensure its salespersons carry out their duties in compliance with the regulation), and s. 9(3) of the Code of Ethics.
• Philip Adam Cresdee, Sales Manager and Person in Charge since 2018, is listed as breaching s. 6(2), s. 9(1) and s. 9(3): the person running the floor failed to keep the dealer compliant.
• Diana Ji-Won Zare, registered as a salesperson since August 1992, breached s. 4(2), s. 6(2), s. 9(1) and s. 9(3). Thirty-four years of registration did not keep the quote inside the advertised price.

Cresdee and Zare must each pass the MVDA Key Elements Course with at least 80% within ninety days, and the dealer must offer to fund the Automotive Certification Course for every current and future salesperson. The Reviewing Panel (Sherry Darvish, Joe Malfara, Chris Pinelli, the same panel that decided Guelph Hyundai) noted this was the dealer’s first appearance before the Discipline Tribunal and that the file involved one incident.

What to learn

• An advertised price built from arithmetic still binds. The $20,586 was itself a composite: $21,788, two fees, minus a $2,500 discount. However the number was assembled, s. 36(7) holds every later quote to it.
• Fix pricing-feed discrepancies before OMVIC tests them. The dealer knew its internal system and website disagreed and was working on it when the mystery shopper walked in. The advertised price is the one you are held to while the fix is in progress.
• Small fees carry the file. $599, $699, $39.95 and $22 individually look routine; together they put the quote $262 over and drew findings against the dealer, the Person in Charge, and the salesperson under s. 6(1) and s. 6(2) of the Code of Ethics.