DealerPrep.ca
OMVIC discipline case ·
KJ Auto Sales, two Shaws and Karl Somwaru plead guilty in Whitby: $25,000 on Consumer Protection Act and warranty-payment counts
Four parties pleaded guilty in Whitby on September 2, 2026 in one KJ Auto Sales prosecution: eight CPA counts and two warranty-payment counts, $25,000.
Four parties, one of them 1888601 Ontario Inc., which trades as KJ Auto Sales/Approved Autoloans and Leasing, pleaded guilty in a Whitby court on September 2, 2026 to ten counts in a single prosecution. The fines on OMVIC’s court table come to $25,000: $7,500 each for the corporation, Ryan Shaw and Karl Somwaru, and $2,500 for Kamalludin Shaw. Eight of the ten convictions are unfair-practice counts under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002. The other two, against the corporation and Somwaru, are for not passing a buyer’s extended warranty payments to the company selling the warranty, an offence under O. Reg. 333/08. No appeal is recorded on any row.
The ten convictions
| Party | Conviction | Fine |
|---|---|---|
| 1888601 Ontario Inc. o/a KJ Auto Sales/Approved Autoloans and Leasing | False, misleading or deceptive representation, CPA s. 14(1) and s. 17(1) | $2,000 |
| Unconscionable representation, CPA s. 15(1) and s. 17(1) | $2,500 | |
| Warranty payments not provided to the warranty seller, O. Reg. 333/08 s. 47(7)(c)(ii) | $3,000 | |
| Ryan Shaw | False, misleading or deceptive representation, CPA s. 14(1) and s. 17(1) | $3,000 |
| False, misleading or deceptive representation, CPA s. 14(1) and s. 17(1) | $2,000 | |
| Unconscionable representation, CPA s. 15(1) and s. 17(1) | $2,500 | |
| Karl Somwaru | False, misleading or deceptive representation, CPA s. 14(1) and s. 17(1) | $2,000 |
| Unconscionable representation, CPA s. 15(1) and s. 17(1) | $2,500 | |
| Warranty payments not provided to the warranty seller, O. Reg. 333/08 s. 47(7)(c)(ii) | $3,000 | |
| Kamalludin Shaw | False, misleading or deceptive representation, CPA s. 14(1) and s. 17(1) | $2,500 |
Every row reads “Conviction - Guilty Plea”. Section 14(1) makes a false, misleading or deceptive representation an unfair practice, s. 15(1) does the same for an unconscionable one, and s. 17(1) says no person shall engage in an unfair practice. Contravening s. 17(1) is the offence, under s. 116(1)(b)(ii).
What the Information alleged
The endorsed Information attached to the rows was laid by an OMVIC provincial offences officer and runs to 30 counts over five vehicles, each charged as taking place “at the Town of Whitby in the Central East Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario”:
- a 2020 Volkswagen Passat, on or about February 13, 2024
- a 2018 Ford Escape, between May 23 and June 15, 2024
- a 2021 Mazda 3, on or about July 29, 2024
- a 2017 Hyundai Tucson, on or about November 9, 2024
- a 2021 Kia Soul, between January 16 and 18, 2025
The corporation, Ryan Shaw and Karl Somwaru each faced seven counts in the same pattern: a s. 14 count on the Passat, the Escape and the Kia Soul, a s. 15 count on the Mazda 3, and three counts on the Tucson. Two of the Tucson counts are s. 14 counts, one alleging a false, misleading or deceptive representation “to wit: lien” and the other “to wit: warranty”. The third alleges the warranty-payment offence. Kamalludin Shaw faced two s. 14 counts, on the Passat and the Escape. The Information describes each representation no further than that.
Every s. 15 count concerns the Mazda 3, so the three unconscionable-representation pleas are on that car, and every warranty-payment count concerns the Tucson. The s. 14 rows name no vehicle, and each party faced several s. 14 counts, so the table does not say whether any plea was entered on the lien count or on the warranty count. The September conviction rows account for 10 of the 23 counts against these four parties and say nothing about the other 13.
A fifth individual is named in the Information on seven counts. The September conviction rows carry none for that person.
Seven days in the charge, 30 days in the regulation
The table words the warranty-payment offence as “FAIL TO PROVIDE THE SELLER OF THE WARRANTY WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE PARTIES ENTER INTO THE CONTRACT WITH ALL PAYMENTS THAT THE DEALER HAS RECEIVED”, citing s. 47(7)(c)(ii). The Information’s own counts cite “Section 47(c)(ii) of Ontario Regulation 333/08” and lay the offence under s. 32 of the MVDA, which makes contravening the regulations an offence at s. 32(1).
The regulation has said 30 days since July 1, 2024. Where a dealer facilitates the sale of an extended warranty to a buyer or lessee other than a registered dealer, s. 47(7)(c) requires it, “within 30 days after the parties enter into the contract for the warranty”, to provide the seller of the warranty with the contract documents it holds, “all payments that the dealer has received from the purchaser”, and any condition and distance statement it holds. The clause read “seven” until O. Reg. 278/24 struck that word out and substituted “30”, with effect from that date, so the seven-day wording is the pre-July 2024 text. The Tucson counts are dated on or about November 9, 2024.
Seven days is still the rule for a service plan. Section 48(6)(c) gives a dealer that facilitates a service plan “within seven days after the parties enter into the contract for the plan” to send the plan’s seller the documents and the buyer’s payments. Section 47(7) was also the clause at issue in The Loan Arranger’s $6,500 discipline fine in December 2025.
The same trade name at the Licence Appeal Tribunal
KJ Auto Sales | Approved Autoloans and Leasing is the dealer named in Hurry v. Board of Trustees, where the Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed a buyer’s Compensation Fund claim on May 25, 2026 because refinancing a Jeep he already owned was not a trade. That appeal was between the buyer and the Fund’s Board of Trustees, and the Tribunal made no finding against the dealer. None of the five vehicles in this Information is the 2019 Jeep Compass from that case.
Fines against the ceiling
The largest single fine in the file is $3,000. Both statutes set the same maximums: an individual convicted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 is liable to a fine of up to $50,000, imprisonment of up to two years less a day, or both, and a corporation to a fine of up to $250,000 (s. 116(5)). The MVDA repeats those figures in s. 32(3). Neither Act sets a minimum fine for these counts. The MVDA’s only minimum, in s. 32(4), applies to registration offences under s. 4(1).
Each unfair-practice count concerns one vehicle. Section 17(2) deems a person who performs one act referred to in s. 14, 15 or 16 to be engaging in an unfair practice, so one representation on one deal is enough for a count under s. 17(1).