OMVIC panel finds Canadian Auto Sales and Brian Swan breached the Code of Ethics over an expired safety certificate and a handwritten lease, clears Krzysztof Szejbach

A March 5, 2024 books-and-records inspection at 1561604 Ontario Inc. o/a Canadian Auto Sales ended, two years later, in a contested discipline hearing that split three ways. In a merits decision dated July 20, 2026, a Discipline Tribunal panel chaired by Aviva R. Harari found the dealer breached sections 7(1) and 9(3) of the Code of Ethics across three vehicle files, found Person in Charge Brian Swan personally breached sections 6(2) and 9(3), and dismissed every allegation against salesperson Krzysztof Szejbach. No fine or order has been made yet: the panel directed the parties to schedule a further hearing on the final order, so the penalty side of this case remains open.

The dealer has been registered since around October 2004 and has operated under terms and conditions from a Licence Appeal Tribunal consent order for just as long, including a positive obligation to disclose all material facts about its vehicles in writing. Swan, a salesperson since 2004, is the dealer’s Person in Charge; Szejbach has been a salesperson since 1992 and with this dealer since 2009. Swan represented all three respondents at the May 26, 2026 videoconference hearing, held under s. 17 of the MVDA before Harari and registrant members Paul Eros and Jon Lemaire.

Four deal files, three failures

The Notice of Referral to Discipline, issued August 14, 2024 and amended at the hearing, came down to paperwork in four deal files that inspector Tina Cabot reviewed.

An expired safety certificate on a 2015 Nissan Rogue. The safety standards certificate in the file was dated July 23, 2023; the lease closed December 19, 2023. An SSC expires 36 days after inspection, so the consumer received a lease supported by a certificate nearly five months stale, contrary to s. 41(9)(d) of O. Reg. 333/08. Swan’s explanation was economic: the vehicle went back to the same shop for a $100 re-inspection instead of a $300 to $400 new certificate. He conceded in cross-examination that no valid SSC existed when the transaction closed, and the panel found the breach made out.

An undisclosed Newfoundland registration on a 2014 Toyota RAV4. The Carfax in the deal file showed the vehicle had been registered in Newfoundland; the bill of sale’s out-of-province box was checked “no”. Out-of-province registration is paragraph 22 of the disclosure list in s. 42 of O. Reg. 333/08. Swan called it a mistake, Szejbach admitted overlooking the entry, and the panel found the breach against the dealer ([56]). Swan had received a warning letter about exactly this disclosure in August 2014.

A handwritten lease on a 2014 Toyota Sienna. Consumer Guleed Nur put $5,000 down and paid $527 a month, understanding he was financing the van. The document he signed in September 2021 was handwritten and missing the capitalized cost, implicit finance charge, total lease cost and itemized HST that s. 41(1) of O. Reg. 333/08 requires. A typed version dated five days later did contain the required information, but it sat in a separate file the dealer never provided to the inspector, and Nur testified the signature on it was not his and he had never seen the document; no evidence contradicted him. The panel held the handwritten document was the real transaction paperwork and found breaches of 7(1) and 9(3). On this file it went further and found a breach of s. 9(1) as well: required information was omitted when the deal was signed, and the dealer, knowing full disclosure was required, failed to make it in a timely way ([62]). (The decision’s cover findings block lists 7(1) and 9(3) for the dealer; the additional finding sits in the analysis at [62].)

The panel’s organizing principle cut through Swan’s suggestion that compliant documents might exist elsewhere: “Documents cannot be authored or generated or produced after the fact in satisfaction of requirements that apply to consumer transactions under the Act” ([54]). Breaches crystallize at the moment of sale; correcting the file later is not a defence.

Why the case against Szejbach failed

OMVIC alleged Szejbach breached his registration conditions by signing as final signatory on the RAV4 and a GMC Savana. The conditions it relied on were signed June 9, 2006, in the wake of Szejbach’s bankruptcy, and they barred him from final-signatory status at a different dealership, not this one. With no evidence he was currently constrained from signing for Canadian Auto Sales, the panel dismissed the allegations as unsubstantiated ([57]), and with them the 6(2) and 9(3) claims built on top. Twenty-year-old conditions written for another employer could not stretch to cover this one.

Swan fared differently. As Person in Charge he was accountable for the dealer’s compliance under s. 6(2), and the panel saw “clear errors in these transaction documents, and insufficient evidence of efforts by Swan to prevent them” ([64]).

This is the first contested merits decision the site has covered where the penalty is still to come, unlike the concluded July 8 orders against Cardoor and 5 Star Dealers, which arrived with fines attached. Until the further hearing happens, no penalty exists against any respondent, and nothing here should be read as final on that question.

What to learn

• The deal file is judged as it stood on inspection day. Producing a cleaner document later, even one the consumer allegedly acknowledged, cannot undo a breach that crystallized at signing. If the handwritten worksheet is what the customer signed, the handwritten worksheet is the transaction record.
• A safety standards certificate has a 36-day shelf life. A lease that drags past it needs a new certificate, not a cheaper re-inspection invoice stapled to the old one. s. 41(9)(d) attaches the obligation to the transaction date.
• Conditions bind by their terms. OMVIC lost every allegation against Szejbach because the 2006 final-signatory restriction named a different dealer. The same precision that sank those allegations protects registrants who actually read what they signed, and it is worth knowing exactly what your own conditions say.