OMVIC fines Yorkdale Fine Cars $5,000 for a hidden rebuilt F150 and ignoring the Registrar, months after dodging revocation

OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined 1878244 Ontario Ltd. o/a Yorkdale Fine Cars $5,000 on December 29, 2025. Two individuals were also found in breach: Remah Shaath, an officer and the dealer’s Person in Charge, registered as a salesperson since 1992, and Emad Hassan, the General Manager. Each must pass the MVDA Key Elements Course with a grade of at least 80% within 90 days. The order rests on an Agreed Statement of Facts dated November 12, 2025. What makes it sting is the backdrop: the conduct came soon after a Licence Appeal Tribunal consent order that had let Yorkdale and Shaath keep their registrations.

A sale that was not really Yorkdale’s

In July 2024 the Registrar received a complaint from counsel for a consumer who said he had bought a 2018 Ford F150 from Drivetime Fine Cars Inc. and run into numerous problems. But the retail bill of sale named Yorkdale, not Drivetime, as the seller. Yorkdale explained the arrangement: Drivetime was the dealer the consumer actually dealt with, but Drivetime introduced the buyer to Yorkdale so the buyer could use Yorkdale’s lending relationships, and the truck was wholesaled from Drivetime to Yorkdale to make the financing work. Hassan signed the bill of sale on Yorkdale’s behalf as salesperson and Sales Manager.

Two things went wrong with that paper. First, although Yorkdale took the F150 in as a wholesale purchase, the truck was never registered in Yorkdale’s name with the Ministry of Transportation, contrary to s. 11(2) of the Highway Traffic Act. Second, Yorkdale sold the truck to the consumer without disclosing that it had been classified as rebuilt, contrary to s. 40(2) paragraph 1 and s. 42(23) of O. Reg. 333/08, the rebuilt-classification disclosure rule. Lending your dealer name and financing to front another dealer’s sale does not move the compliance obligations onto the other dealer. The panel found Yorkdale breached s. 7(1), s. 9(1), and s. 9(3) of the Code.

Then the dealer went quiet

When the Registrar could not resolve the complaint with Drivetime, which stopped responding, attention turned to Yorkdale as the named seller. What followed is a textbook failure to cooperate:

• January 10, 2025: the Registrar emailed Yorkdale, to the attention of Shaath, asking for a written response within five business days and reminding the dealer of its obligation to respond under s. 14 of the Act. No response by January 22.
• January 22, 2025: a second letter, with a January 29 deadline and a warning that failure to respond could lead to administrative action. No response.
• January 31, 2025: a phone call, transferred to Hassan, who gave an alternative email address and said he would try to help. The letters were forwarded there with a February 6 deadline. No response by February 6.
• June 2, 2025: a response finally arrived, through the dealer’s counsel.

The duty to respond to the Registrar is not optional. Section 14(3) of the MVDA requires a registrant to provide the information the Registrar requests. Taking five months and a lawyer to answer breached s. 14(3), the dealer’s own consent-order terms, and s. 9(1) of the Code. Because Yorkdale also failed to ensure its salespersons complied, it breached s. 6(1). Shaath, as Person in Charge, and Hassan, who signed the deal and was looped in on the requests, each personally breached s. 6(2) and s. 9(1).

The consent order that made it worse

On April 18, 2024, the Licence Appeal Tribunal had issued a consent order resolving an earlier OMVIC proceeding that sought to revoke Yorkdale’s and Shaath’s registrations. Paragraph 6 of the agreed terms required the registrants not to engage in any conduct that would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional, or unbecoming. The F150 sale and the months of silence came right after that settlement.

The panel did not hide its reaction. It was “greatly troubled” that the transaction “follows hard on the heels of the settlement at the Licence Appeal Tribunal wherein the Dealer and Shaath avoided the potential revocation of their registrations by agreeing not to engage in conduct of this nature.” It called the $5,000 fine “on the low end of the range for such egregious behaviour,” accepting it only because it did not markedly conflict with comparison cases. That places Yorkdale alongside the LAT thread on the site, from Jandu, where conditions were substituted for revocation, to Leon’s Fine Cars, where the registration was pulled.

What to learn

• The seller on the bill of sale owns the compliance. If your dealership’s name is on the retail bill of sale, you are the seller for OMVIC’s purposes. Fronting another dealer’s deal to provide financing does not transfer the disclosure duties, the rebuilt-classification disclosure under s. 42, or the obligation to put the vehicle in your name at MTO under HTA s. 11(2).
• Ignoring the Registrar is its own offence. Section 14(3) requires a timely response to a request for information. Five months of silence broke that duty independently of whatever was wrong with the underlying sale, and it travels to the Person in Charge personally.
• A consent order is a floor, not a fresh start. Yorkdale and Shaath kept their registrations by agreeing to terms of conduct. Breaching that bargain months later is the fact a tribunal will name first. Conduct that might draw a modest fine on its own reads very differently when it breaks a deal that spared a revocation.