Registrar suspends Automania Inc. and Hasham Qamar with immediate effect and proposes revocation, alleging bounced Ferrari lease payments and 28 floorplan vehicles sold out of trust

On September 16, 2026, the Registrar under the MVDA, Maureen Harquail, suspended the registrations of Automania Inc., a dealer at 5125 Steeles Avenue West in Toronto, and Hasham Qamar, its officer, director and person in charge, with immediate effect. The same day she issued a notice of proposal to revoke both registrations. Everything the notice says about the dealer is an allegation by the Registrar. The Licence Appeal Tribunal has not decided the matter, and on September 30, 2026 OMVIC’s enforcement table listed both rows as Active.

Both the dealer and Qamar were first registered on or about October 16, 2013, according to the notice (paras. 1 and 2).

Two documents, two powers

The immediate temporary suspension order is made under s. 10 of the MVDA. The Registrar can make one only when she proposes to suspend or revoke under section 9 and considers a suspension to be in the public interest, and it takes effect immediately (s. 10(1) and (2)). The notice of proposal is the s. 9 step: it sets out reasons and gives the registrant 15 days after service to ask the Tribunal for a hearing.

The two are linked by a clock. If a hearing is requested, the suspension expires 15 days after the Tribunal receives the request, unless a hearing starts within those 15 days and the Tribunal extends the order until the hearing is concluded (s. 10(3)). If no hearing is requested, s. 9(4) lets the Registrar carry out the proposal. The order puts it in capitals: without a written request for a hearing, the proposal “SHALL BE CARRIED OUT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.”

The Ferrari leases

The notice alleges that Automania leased two vehicles from another registered dealer, which it calls “HA”: a 2023 Ferrari SF90 with a purchase price of $658,000 and a 2026 Ferrari the notice spells “Pursangue” with a purchase price of $759,000. Qamar personally guaranteed both leases (paras. 3 to 5).

The sequence the Registrar alleges runs through June and July 2026:

• In or around June, HA was told the dealer’s insurance was no longer active, and payments on both cars were returned for insufficient funds or could not be processed. A later attempt to pay the arrears was also returned for insufficient funds (paras. 6 to 8).
• On or around July 7, a representative of HA went to the dealer’s premises and found the landlord had taken them over for unpaid rent (para. 9).
• HA tried to recover the cars and found that the GPS tracking installed on them had “likely” been hampered by signal-blocking technology. The dealer’s representatives would not say where the cars were (paras. 10 and 11).
• On or around July 8, the notice says, Qamar contacted HA and “insinuated that the vehicles would not be seen again” unless HA stopped trying to locate them (para. 11).
• The cars were eventually returned to HA, which then found they had been modified (para. 12).

The floorplan

The second set of allegations concerns a floorplan lender the notice calls “AFC”. The notice explains the arrangement: the lender funds a dealer’s purchase of inventory and is repaid when the dealer sells each vehicle (paras. 13 to 15). The notice treats a financed vehicle that was sold without the lender being repaid as sold “out of trust” (paras. 17 and 21).

According to the notice (paras. 16 to 22):

• An inventory check by a third-party auditor on or around June 4, 2026 found the dealer had sold 15 AFC-financed vehicles without repaying AFC. A $100,000 partial payment the dealer attempted the same day was reversed for insufficient funds.
• On or around June 8, AFC issued a Notice of Intent to Repossess covering approximately 82 vehicles. On or about June 10, an attempt to withdraw approximately $440,000 from the dealer failed for insufficient funds.
• On or about June 18, a bailiff recovered 54 vehicles. The remaining 28 had been sold to consumers and, the notice says, were therefore sold out of trust.
• AFC’s estimated loss is over $800,000.

On or about June 22, the dealer’s lawyer told the Registrar’s office that the dealer had ceased operations and that the lawyer would help coordinate with creditors and with any matters involving consumers who might be affected (para. 23). The notice adds that between June and July, representatives of the Registrar or the Director under the Act “received indications that the Dealer and Qamar were not meeting their financial obligations and/or that Qamar had fled the country” (para. 24). The notice reports those as indications received, and it does not say they were confirmed.

The grounds

The notice relies on two of the entitlement tests in s. 6(1) of the MVDA, applied to the corporation and to Qamar (paras. 25 to 28):

• Past conduct. Qamar’s past conduct is said to disentitle him under s. 6(1)(a)(ii), and to disentitle the dealer under s. 6(1)(d)(iii), which reaches a corporation through the conduct of its officers and directors.
• Financial responsibility. The dealer’s financial position is said to mean it cannot reasonably be expected to be financially responsible in the conduct of its business, under s. 6(1)(d)(i), and to disentitle Qamar, as an interested person of the dealer, under s. 6(1)(a)(i).

The notice also says the Registrar will seek costs under Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules, and that she may add further particulars or grounds later.

The Tribunal step

If a hearing is requested and held, the Tribunal may direct the Registrar to carry out the proposal, substitute its own opinion, or attach conditions (s. 9(5)). The site has followed two earlier suspension files to their end: Montero Auto Center, where the Tribunal extended the suspension after a contested hearing, and Approval Capital, where the extension was consented to. OMVIC’s table later recorded both as revoked on the no-hearing path. Automania’s file is at its first step. On September 30 the table showed the suspension and the proposal as Active and recorded no appeal to the Divisional Court, and it did not say whether Automania or Qamar had asked the Tribunal for a hearing.