OMVIC fines Thunder Bay Harley-Davidson $2,500 over $407.50 hidden fee

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined Ciotucha Enterprise Ltd. o/a Thunder Bay Harley-Davidson/Fleet Auto & Truck Repairs $2,500 on April 2, 2026 after a single mystery shop on a 2019 Harley-Davidson Road King Special found a $407.50 fee added above the advertised price. The dealer must also offer to fund the Automotive Certification Course for every current and future salesperson on its roster. Theodore Ciotucha, an officer and Person in Charge, and Kenny Armenti, the salesperson who handled the mystery shopper, must each complete the MVDA Key Elements Course within 90 days.

The most interesting line in the decision is not the fine. It is the panel’s refusal to treat the fact that the buyer was an OMVIC representative as a mitigating factor. That position pairs with the 25% increase in mystery shopping that OMVIC flagged in its 2025 annual report: the regulator is using mystery shops more often, and the Tribunal is treating them as full consumer transactions for sentencing purposes.

What the mystery shop found

On or before July 12, 2025, the dealer advertised a red 2019 Harley-Davidson FLHRXS Road King Special at $19,500 plus taxes and licensing. The advertisement did not indicate whether the price was for a cash purchase or financing. On July 16, 2025, an OMVIC representative attended the dealership posing as a member of the public.

A price sticker on the vehicle showed a $407.50 OMVIC & Administrative fee added above the advertised price. Armenti then handed the shopper an Offer to Purchase document that broke down the same $407.50 as a $12.50 Del/PPSA/VSI fee plus a $395 Document/Administrative fee. The advertised price was not all-inclusive. That is the s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 breach the case turns on, and the foundation for the s. 4(2) of the Code of Ethics finding that the dealer’s representation was not truthful.

The textual carve-out in the all-in pricing rule names sales tax (s. 36(10)); OMVIC’s longstanding interpretive practice also accepts licensing shown separately. Document fees, PPSA registration fees, the VSI charge, and the OMVIC fee all have to be inside the advertised number.

Three respondents, three different breach lists

The Reviewing Panel made distinct findings for each respondent. The split is worth reading carefully because s. 6(1) of the Code of Ethics, which appears here, is the less commonly cited counterpart to s. 6(2).

• The Dealer breached s. 4(2), s. 6(1), and s. 9(3). Section 6(1) is the dealer’s positive duty to ensure that every salesperson it employs or retains carries out duties in compliance with the regulation. It runs in parallel to s. 6(2), which is the salesperson’s individual duty not to do or omit anything that causes the dealer to contravene the regulation.
• Theodore Ciotucha, the Person in Charge, breached s. 6(2) and s. 9(3). Ciotucha was first registered as a salesperson in May 1982, which means he had been carrying an OMVIC registration for more than four decades before this matter. The panel still applied the standard PIC accountability rule: if the dealership’s bills of sale and price stickers do not match the advertising, the Person in Charge is the registrant the regulator looks to.
• Kenny Armenti, the floor salesperson, breached s. 4(2), s. 6(2), and s. 9(3). Armenti was the registrant who handed the shopper the Offer to Purchase showing the fee structure, so the disclosure breach attaches to him personally as well as to the dealer.

The Reviewing Panel was Greg Flude (Public Member), Jon Lemaire (Registrant Member), and Paul Repar (Registrant Member). Flude signed the order on behalf of the other two. The matter proceeded under Rule 1.07 of the Discipline and Appeals Tribunal Rules of Practice with an Agreed Statement of Facts dated December 2, 2025.

Why “it was only a mystery shop” did not work

The panel listed one aggravating factor (one impugned trade with an all-in pricing breach) and two mitigating factors (acceptance of responsibility through the Agreed Statement, and a first appearance before the Tribunal). Then it added a third category labelled “Other Factors” with this line:

The Reviewing Panel does not accept the fact that no consumer was harmed by this interaction as a mitigating factor. It was, as far as the Dealer was concerned on the day, a consumer transaction. The Dealer cannot use the fact that in this instance it was a mystery shop to suggest its breach of the Code of Ethics was somehow less culpable than a sale to actual consumer.

That paragraph is the headline for any dealer training on advertising compliance this year. A mystery shop is a real interaction from the dealer’s side of the counter, the price sticker is the same price sticker every consumer sees, and the documents handed over are the same documents a buyer would have signed. This panel treated the breach that way for sentencing, and the 25% increase in mystery shopping reported in OMVIC’s 2025 annual report suggests more cases like it are coming.

How the panel arrived at the penalty

The $2,500 fine sits at the lower end of the range the Tribunal has been imposing for single-trade all-in pricing breaches. Compare Hully Gully ($5,500) on the same April 2 docket, where the panel found two impugned trades and an OMVIC compliance letter sent fifteen months before the inspection. With one trade and no prior warning on record for Thunder Bay Harley-Davidson, the dollar number lands lower.

The training pieces are layered. The dealer’s offer-to-fund obligation is for the Automotive Certification Course, OMVIC’s newer education program for salespersons, with a 90-day window. The individual respondents (Ciotucha and Armenti) each take the MVDA Key Elements Course within the same 90 days. The split tracks current OMVIC practice: ACC for ongoing salesperson development, Key Elements for remediation tied to discipline.

What to learn

• A mystery shop is a sale, for breach purposes. The Tribunal will not treat the absence of actual consumer harm as a mitigating factor when the dealer behaved as if it were closing a real deal. Price stickers, Offers to Purchase, and salesperson conversations during a mystery shop are evidence of the dealer’s day-to-day practice.
• Section 6(1) puts a positive duty on the dealer. s. 6(1) of the Code of Ethics requires a dealer to ensure that every salesperson it employs carries out duties in compliance with the regulation. The PIC structure is the operational mechanism, but the dealer entity is the registrant that fails the duty when the documentation does not match the advertising. Watch for this section to be cited more often as OMVIC scales mystery shopping.
• Document and PPSA fees belong inside the advertised price. A $395 administrative fee plus a $12.50 PPSA/VSI fee on a powersports vehicle is the same compliance error as a $987.60 fee block on a passenger car (compare Hully Gully). The size of the fee does not change the rule. The textual carve-out s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 actually names is sales tax under s. 36(10); OMVIC’s longstanding interpretive practice also accepts licensing shown separately.