Automotive Wholesale Inc. (Need A Car Used Car Superstores) fined $2,500 and Anil Puri $1,000 plus Key Elements, with a separate Thunder Bay referral still open

Anil Puri’s name sat on three separate proceedings on OMVIC’s enforcement table when this post was first published: a discipline outcome dated August 26, 2026, a referral to the Discipline Tribunal from July 2026, and a proposal to revoke from December 2025. The newest was the discipline outcome, a $2,500 administrative penalty against Automotive Wholesale Inc. (Toronto Auto Group, 2nd Chance Automotive, Need A Car Used Car Superstores) and $1,000 plus the MVDA Key Elements course against Puri. Neither row had a decision attached when this post was first published. The decision is now public, and the penalties were for a reply to a customer’s online review (see the update at the end). The documents OMVIC has published about all-in pricing concern a Thunder Bay dealer. They are a Notice of Referral dated July 19, 2026, and an Order to Cease and Retract dated April 26, 2026. Puri is a named party to the referral and appears in the April notice’s background particulars. Both documents describe an all-in pricing history that starts with a reminder in February 2023 and an education order in August 2025.

Which corporation was fined

The referral and the cease-and-retract order name Canadian Sterling Corp. o/a Need A Car Used Car Superstore, at 655 Memorial Avenue in Thunder Bay, a dealer first registered in or around October 2007. The August 26 penalty rows name Automotive Wholesale Inc., whose operating names on the table include Need A Car Used Car Superstores alongside Toronto Auto Group and 2nd Chance Automotive. Puri is named in the Thunder Bay documents and on his own August 26 row. The referral describes him as a salesperson registered since February 1996 and, at all material times, the general manager and Person in Charge of the Thunder Bay dealer. The Notice of Order that accompanies the cease-and-retract order dates that role to on or about February 10, 2012.

Nothing on the table links the August 26 outcome to the July referral. The referral’s rows for Canadian Sterling Corp. and Puri still read Active, and the table lists them under July 20 although the document is dated July 19. The referral contains allegations and the order is the Registrar’s. Neither has been adjudicated.

The all-in pricing file, 2023 to 2026

According to the referral, a representative of the Registrar told Puri on or around February 23, 2023 that the dealer’s advertisements, which quoted a price plus “taxes and fees,” were not compliant with s. 36(7) of O. Reg. 333/08. Under that rule an advertised price must be the total of the amount a buyer pays for the vehicle and all other charges related to the trade, including fees and levies. On or about August 29, 2025, the referral continues, after an OMVIC mystery shop found the same problem, the Registrar issued an education order under s. 14(4) requiring the dealer and Puri to complete the Advertising and Disclosure Presentation. The same subsection authorises referrals. The referral records that Puri completed it.

On or around January 6, 2026, according to the referral, the Registrar’s representative reviewed ads for six vehicles on the dealer’s website and on CarGurus: a 2021 Honda Civic at $21,995, a 2014 Chevrolet Silverado at $13,995, a 2019 Chevrolet Equinox at $19,995, a 2018 Jeep Wrangler at $26,995, a 2023 Ford Bronco Sport at $30,995 and a 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee at $21,995. The Notice of Order describes the layout. Directly under each price on the website was a line saying HST and licensing were extra, and neither document takes issue with that line. A second line, in a smaller font and a separate location, read: “levy and other environmental or related levies, other taxes (including, where applicable, GST and PST or HST), additional options, license, insurance and registration are extra.” The CarGurus versions, according to the notice, mentioned no extra fees at all. The notice also raises a second problem the referral does not. Another small-font line said “this vehicle is not drivable, not certified. Certification is available for $695.” The notice states that the advertisements failed to indicate in a clear, comprehensible and prominent manner that the vehicles were being sold as-is, contrary to s. 4(2) of the Code of Ethics.

An order in April, a referral in July

On April 26, 2026, the Registrar, Maureen Harquail, ordered the dealer under s. 29 of the MVDA to cease and retract the use of advertisements making false, misleading or deceptive statements, with one enumerated particular: cease the use of false, misleading or deceptive statements regarding motor vehicle pricing. An order of that kind takes effect immediately under s. 29(3), subject to a stay from the Licence Appeal Tribunal. The Registrar’s Orders tab on OMVIC’s table lists it under April 28. Then on July 19, the Registrar referred the dealer and Puri to the Discipline Tribunal under s. 14(4), alleging that the prices were not all-inclusive and breached s. 4(1), 4(2), 9(1) and 9(3) of the Code of Ethics, and that Puri, as Person in Charge, had failed to ensure compliance and so personally contravened s. 6(2) and 9(3). The referral notes the $25,000 fine ceiling for each party, which sits in s. 17(4). Its Schedule A lists more than 70 OMVIC publications since 2008 that, in the referral’s words, reminded registrants of their all-in price advertising obligations.

The December 2025 proposal on OMVIC’s table

On December 19, 2025, the Registrar issued a proposal under s. 9 naming Automotive Wholesale Inc. and Anil Puri. OMVIC’s table listed both rows as proposals to revoke, Active, with no hearing date and no document attached, so the grounds were not published. The Licence Appeal Tribunal’s consent order in the appeal says at [1] that the Registrar proposed to revoke the dealer’s registration and to suspend Puri’s registration as a salesperson. What the order settled, and what the table now shows, is in the update below.

Update 2026-09-30

OMVIC has since attached the August 26 decision to both penalty rows. Its findings are not about all-in pricing. The $2,500 and the $1,000 are for a public reply Puri posted, on the dealer’s behalf, to a customer’s online review.

What changed in this post. It first said the findings behind the penalties were not published, and it set the penalties beside the Thunder Bay all-in pricing file. The sentence in the opening section, the summary and the penalty line now say what the decision is about. The opening sentence on the three proceedings is now in the past tense, as of first publication. The summary no longer says the December 2025 proposal remains active, and the section on that proposal now says what the table listed and what the Tribunal’s order says the proposal was, in place of calling it still open and the August 26 outcome the only one closed. The sections on the July 2026 referral and the April 2026 order are unchanged. The referral still reads Active on OMVIC’s table, and the August 26 decision does not mention either document.

The decision. The matter proceeded in writing under Rule 1.07, on an Agreed Statement of Facts dated June 16, 2026. The panel was Aviva Harari (public member), signing on behalf of registrant members Jon Lemaire and Joe Malfara. The referral behind it is a Notice of Referral to Discipline dated June 18, 2025, a separate document from the Thunder Bay referral, and the allegations in eight of its paragraphs (3, 4, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 21) were withdrawn. The agreed facts give the dealer as first registered on or about October 1999, and Puri as first registered on or about February 1996 and the dealer’s sole director and a Person in Charge.

What happened. According to the agreed facts, in and around January 2025 a consumer who had told a sales representative of the dealer his monthly income, and that he was on the Ontario Disability Support Program, travelled about 120 kilometres to the dealership. A representative there told him he needed a minimum income of $1,800. On or about January 15, 2025 he posted a review calling the visit a waste of time. Puri replied publicly for the dealer, writing in part that “the scam is on your side” and commenting on the consumer’s income and credit ([6]). The consumer complained to the Registrar on or about January 23, 2025 about the public sharing of his financial information, disputed its accuracy, and called the comments disrespectful towards a disabled person ([7]). In March 2025 a representative of the dealer told the Registrar’s representative the posting had been removed, and acknowledged the “response from the owner may have been a bit less than professional” ([9]).

Findings and order. The dealer breached s. 9(1) of the Code of Ethics, the rule against conduct that would reasonably be regarded as unprofessional or unbecoming of a registrant. Puri breached s. 9(1) and s. 6(2), the latter as the Person in Charge who failed to ensure the dealer complied. Each order runs 90 calendar days:

• the dealer pays $2,500;
• Puri pays $1,000 and completes the MVDA Key Elements Course;
• the dealer offers every current and future salesperson it employs a funded MVDA Key Elements Course.

The reasons. Under aggravating factors the panel named Puri’s “very poor judgment in responding with hostility at the comment and more particularly in disclosing customer information”, said there are more appropriate ways a business can deal with a negative comment, and said both had been registered for many years and “ought to have known better”, especially on a public platform. In their favour it counted the agreed statement and joint submission, and that Puri removed the comment when asked.

The revocation proposal went to the Licence Appeal Tribunal

The December 19, 2025 proposal was appealed. A Licence Appeal Tribunal amended consent order in file 18164/MVDA, by Vice-Chair Jeffery Campbell, dated August 31, 2026 and released September 1, 2026, names three appellants: Anil Puri, Automotive Wholesale Inc., and a salesperson, Karen Poonawalla. The order describes the proposal differently from OMVIC’s table. The table listed the rows for the dealer and Puri as proposals to revoke, which is how this post described them. The order says the Registrar proposed under s. 9 of the MVDA to revoke the dealer’s registration and to suspend the registrations of Puri and Poonawalla as salespersons ([1]).

The order resolves Poonawalla’s part only. The Registrar and Poonawalla resolved the issues between them, and on their consent the Tribunal confirmed her registration as a salesperson on terms and conditions she signed on August 26, 2026 and the Registrar signed on August 28 ([2] to [4]). The terms run two years from the order unless a term says otherwise. Among them:

• for three years, she may not be a partner, shareholder, officer, director, controlling mind or person in charge of a dealer;
• for five years from the consent order, no employment, supervisory, business or referral relationship with Husseini Poonawalla, or with 2504558 Ontario Inc., in connection with a vehicle trade or financing transaction;
• no trade or transfer of a vehicle without the registered owner’s knowledge and consent, and reasonable steps, documented, to confirm that consent first;
• the MVDA Key Elements Course within 90 days of signing, at a score of at least 80 per cent.

The order does not say where the dealer’s and Puri’s appeals stand. On September 30, 2026, OMVIC’s table showed Poonawalla’s row as concluded, with conditions of registration and no hearing, dated September 1, 2026. The December 19, 2025 rows for the dealer and Puri that were on the table on September 2 no longer appear, although the same tab still lists proposals from October to December 2025. OMVIC has published nothing that explains the change.