OMVIC's Registrar orders Georgetown Kia to cease and retract advertising that understated its own OMVIC fee

OMVIC’s Registrar, Maureen Harquail, ordered 1562651 Ontario Ltd. o/a Georgetown Kia to immediately cease and retract false, misleading and/or deceptive advertising about vehicle pricing on July 6, 2026. It is the second Registrar order under s. 29 of the MVDA in three weeks, after the CarHub North York Chrysler order of June 16. This one goes a step further: where CarHub was ordered to cease, Georgetown Kia must also retract and publish a correction of equal prominence to the original advertisements.

The order is not a final adjudicated finding. It took effect immediately under s. 29(3). The Georgetown dealer, registered since around June 2003, was entitled to appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal within 15 days of service under s. 9(2), and the Tribunal may grant a stay until the order becomes final. Whether an appeal has been filed is not public in the order itself.

A $10 OMVIC fee that is actually $22

In and around March 2026, a representative of the Registrar reviewed the dealer’s online advertising and found six vehicles on its website, from a $13,699 2017 Nissan Qashqai to a $32,799 2022 GMC Sierra 1500. Each showed a prominent selling price plus “fees”. Clicking “buy now” produced a pop-up titled “Pricing Breakdown” adding two required charges: a $10 OMVIC fee and a $100 gas fee.

That structure is the familiar all-in pricing problem. Section 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 requires the advertised price to include every charge the dealer collects, sales tax aside. On the Registrar’s stated grounds, a mandatory fee surfaced only in a pop-up meant the headline number was not the real price, making the advertising false, misleading and/or deceptive contrary to s. 28 of the Act.

The second ground is less familiar. The order states the correct OMVIC transaction fee is $22, not the $10 the pop-up claimed. In the Registrar’s assessment, understating a regulatory fee in a pricing breakdown was itself a false statement, cited as a separate s. 28 breach. A dealer that itemizes fees has to itemize them accurately.

Education came first, twice

The order records two prior interventions. In February 2024 an OMVIC representative issued a formal warning letter about the dealer’s all-in price obligations under s. 36(7). In December 2025 the Registrar issued a Section 14 Notice to Take Further Educational Courses on advertising and disclosure to the dealer’s two Persons in Charge, and they completed the courses. The March 2026 advertising review came after both.

That escalation pattern matches the discipline docket: warnings, then education, then a harder instrument. In Stouffville Hyundai the next step was a fine. Here the Registrar reached instead for s. 29, which stops the conduct immediately, and which carries the same tail described in the CarHub post: under s. 29(4), if the order becomes final, the Registrar can require the dealer to submit advertising for pre-approval before publication for a specified period.

What to learn

• Pop-up fees are still fees. A “Pricing Breakdown” screen that adds mandatory charges after the headline price is a s. 36(7) breach. The advertised number must be the number the buyer pays, sales tax aside.
• Get the fee amounts right. Misstating the OMVIC transaction fee ($10 instead of $22) was cited as its own false, misleading and/or deceptive statement under s. 28.
• A retraction order is heavier than a cease order. Under s. 29 the Registrar can order a correction of equal prominence to the original advertisement, meaning the dealer must publicly correct the record, not just quietly fix the website.