OMVIC fines Kia Stouffville $3,500 over a $599 safety fee on a Kia Soul advertised with the safety certificate in the price

On or before January 29, 2026, Stouffville Automotive Inc. o/a Kia Stouffville advertised a white 2021 Kia Soul EX at $18,400 for a cash purchase and $16,900 for a finance deal, and the advertisement said the car was sold with a safety certificate included in the advertised price. On or about January 29, an OMVIC representative posing as a member of the public asked about it. Arteen Dehghan Manshadi (Manshadi in the decision), the dealer’s Finance Manager, indicated that a $599 safety fee had been added above both prices. On August 26, 2026, OMVIC’s Discipline Tribunal fined the dealer $3,500 and ordered Manshadi to complete the MVDA Key Elements Course.

Kia Stouffville is a different business from the two other Stouffville dealers fined for all-in pricing this year, ZAG (Whitville) Sales Limited o/a Stouffville Hyundai and 2449616 Ontario Inc. o/a Stouffville Honda.

Certified in the ad, then a $599 safety fee

On the $599, Manshadi advised that the dealer “can work something out” only if the representative was ready to move forward with the transaction (para [7]). The agreed statement of facts, dated July 22, 2026, draws two breaches from the one inquiry.

The first is the all-in breach. With $599 added above the advertised price, the price “was not all-inclusive nor was it represented in a clear and truthful manner,” contrary to s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08 and ss. 4(1), 4(2) and 9(3) of the Code of Ethics (para [8]).

The second turns on what the advertisement itself said. “By simultaneously advertising the vehicle as safety certified and requiring safety certification at an additional cost,” the parties agreed, the dealer failed to advertise the price “in a clear, comprehensible, and prominent manner,” contrary to the same provisions (para [9]). Section 36(7) requires an advertised price to be set out in that manner and as the total of what the buyer pays for the vehicle and every other charge related to the trade.

The Nawab Motors order of May 2026 also concerned a certification fee added above the advertised price, $999 on a $17,999 Buick Encore that a salesperson called mandatory. Those agreed facts describe the advertisement by its price alone, and the dealer’s findings there were under Code ss. 4(2) and 9(3). Here the advertisement had already told the reader the safety was in the price, and the dealer was also found in breach of s. 4(1), the duty to be clear and truthful in describing prices. The site’s guide to what a dealer can add to the advertised price covers when certification can sit outside it, such as a vehicle advertised as unfit.

A Finance Manager, and two sets of allegations withdrawn

Manshadi has been registered as a salesperson since around February 2024 and was, at all material times, a Finance Manager and salesperson of the dealer. The agreed facts say he engaged in the trade contrary to Code ss. 4(1), 4(2) and 9(3) and caused the dealer’s contravention (para [10]). The Reviewing Panel’s findings against him are s. 6(2), the salesperson’s duty not to cause the dealer to contravene the law, and s. 9(3). The dealer, registered since around January 2019, was found in breach of ss. 4(1), 4(2) and 9(3).

The Notice of Referral had named two other individuals. The agreed facts record that the allegations against both were withdrawn, and neither appears in the findings or the order.

The dealer indicated to OMVIC that it had communicated with its staff about the importance of complying with s. 36(7) before the mystery shop, and again after it received the referral (para [11]).

The order and the reasons

The matter went in writing under Rule 1.07 of the Rules of Practice, on the agreed facts, a jointly proposed disposition and a waiver of an oral hearing. The Reviewing Panel was Aviva Harari, Public Member, with Registrant Members Jon Lemaire and Joe Malfara. The order has three terms, each due within 90 calendar days:

• the dealer pays a $3,500 fine;
• Manshadi completes the MVDA Key Elements Course;
• the dealer offers to fund the MVDA Key Elements Course for every current and future salesperson it employs.

The order names no minimum grade for the course. The reasons run to two short paragraphs: the joint submission addresses specific and general deterrence and rehabilitation, the penalty is consistent with the public interest, and the fine with the educational terms is within a reasonable range and not “so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender,” a phrase the decision footnotes to Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers and R. v. Anthony-Cook.