1. Requiring a Cooling-Off Period on All Transactions
The ministry is proposing a pre-possession two-day cooling-off period for the purchase or lease of new and used, including “as-is”, motor vehicles. The cooling-off period would apply to all transactions, including those involving a vehicle trade-in.
During the proposed two-day cooling-off period, the consumer would not take possession of the motor vehicle. This means that the motor vehicle would remain at the dealership and would not be registered in the consumer’s name until the two-day cooling-off period has ended. In transactions that include a vehicle trade-in, registrants would not take immediate possession of, or pay the outstanding loan on, the trade-in vehicle. Should a consumer wish to take possession of the motor vehicle prior to the end of the cooling-off period, registrants would be required to seek written confirmation from the consumer that they wish to waive the cooling-off period to take immediate possession of the motor vehicle, finalize the sale, and process the vehicle trade-in, if applicable.
UCDA says:
By the time a consumer puts ‘pen to paper’ they have done a good deal of legwork and research. It’s the consumer that wants fast delivery of the vehicle they chose to buy or lease. Most, if not all, consumers will choose to opt out of a two-day period before they can drive their newly acquired vehicle.
What happens to the trade-in during this two-day window? If the customer keeps driving it, that reduces its value, and risks damage to it, changing the trade-in allowance needed on the contract.
Another concern is that this will push the time forward that a customer will use to take their “deal” and shop it around to other dealers, something that consumers do now and which leads to disputes over deposits and the like. The problem that confronts dealers is what to do while they wait. They won’t want to go and register a vehicle and safety it until the two-day period ends so it will just delay further, as much as four to six days, before the consumer gets the vehicle. The consumer will not want that either. Most dealers will cancel a sale on request anyway.
The Ministry previously wanted bills of sales and leases to alert the buyer to the serious nature of the contract they were entering into. Why confuse consumers?
They know that, after buying a house – this is probably the next most expensive thing they will buy. Presumably, they have thought long and hard about it – so we are not convinced a cooling-off period is needed.
A more effective policy is to educate consumers about their rights and responsibilities when they buy – there are publications that help people to understand how to inspect vehicles and to ask the right questions. There has to be some responsibility on consumers to make informed decisions.
It will be the consumer, not just dealers, pushing back on this requirement.
This policy has been considered in the past and it was discarded for the reason that getting a vehicle ready for delivery involves time and expense to the dealer; all this does is build further delay and uncertainly into the buying process.
It also adds to costs. If a dealer has to sit on a sold vehicle for two-days, during which time they can’t sell it to other buyers, then have a buyer walk away, requiring them to relist the vehicle for sale and hope for a quick sale that may not come, will add to losses that will inevitably cause used car pricing to rise in an environment where costs are already sky high for consumers. Meanwhile, the salespeople that worked with the customer to put the deal together make no commission on the sale, all their time is lost, and if that happens a few times a month, this could drive people out of the industry.
Another question is, will it apply to a business buyer or just consumers, business buyers presumably needing less such protection.
Also, we are concerned curbsiders could use this two day ‘window’ to shop the vehicle around and reduce their risk of not having a buyer for their flip.
2. Requiring an Information Guide for Consumers
The ministry is proposing that OMVIC be required to develop an information guide to inform consumers of their rights under the MVDA and of the role of OMVIC. The ministry is also proposing that registrants be required to provide the guide to consumers.
UCDA says:
Adding more material during the purchase process is not going to educate consumers. They will not read it. Most of the information about OMVIC and its role is already required to be on contract and lease forms in use in Ontario. The better approach is to educate consumers before they buy or lease and OMVIC can do that via website, ads and information sessions aimed at consumers.
OMVIC’s website address is already printed on all standard sale and lease forms in use in Ontario.
Another concern is the use of more paper in a paper-based transaction and who pays for this.
3. Allowing Trade Outside the Place of Business
The ministry is proposing to enable registrants to conduct all aspects of trade (e.g., buying, selling, leasing, or inciting) outside of their place of business under certain circumstances, such as if the consumer invites the registrant to do so. Regardless of where the trade is conducted, all registrants would still be required to maintain a place of business in Ontario.
UCDA says:
When we first encountered this proposal, we wondered, if it goes forward, why ANY dealer would need a physical address anymore. Taken to its logical conclusion, a dealer would be able to conduct business remotely, electronically and virtually, and consummate a sale with whatever paperwork is required in the consumer’s driveway, kitchen or at a Tim Hortons. Dealers would operate like Amazon or Casper mattresses and never have to invite a consumer to their “dealership”.
What policy reason is there for doing this? What is the problem that the government is trying to remedy? Just because a consumer wants the dealer to go to his/her house to sign a contract – should this happen? The proposal justifies this by saying that any concerns would be dealt with by a cooling-off period – which the UCDA is not in favour of. In any event, that does not answer the essential question – what is the reason for the policy – what problem are you trying to fix?
The seriousness of buying a car – as we touched on above – is more likely to be observed at a dealership – including the consumer actually being convinced that the person selling the car is an actual dealer. Think of everything else that happens at a dealership during the sales process – documentation, identity verification, copying, for example – easier at a dealership.
Here are the problems and why we find this so unacceptable:
Consumers will not know for sure who they are really buying from or dealing with. This problem exists now on financed deals and this will grow even worse if this proposal carries.
Consumers will not fully appreciate the serious nature of the contract they are entering into if it’s as easy as ordering a pizza or a pair of shoes.
Local by-laws and municipalities will not allow such operations to be conducted from private dwellings, nor should they. No one wants to live next to a house with cars constantly coming and going and test drives being taken on roads where children are playing.
Insurance concerns will arise in respect of liability for homeowners in the context of off-site sales. Insurers will be concerned if this proposal is implemented.
The policy objective was that dealers would have a proper place of business to conduct transactions, and not operate out of trailers, sheds, the trunks of their car or, worse, nowhere at all. It was established in the 1960’s and has rightly survived MVDA regulatory review in 1972 and again in 2010.
The struggle now is to ensure that the distinction between credible motor vehicle dealership businesses and virtual curbsiders / private sellers is not further blurred, so that there is no doubt which side of the line dealers fall on.
Operating from an identifiable premises that meets prescribed minimum requirements, provides a sense of permanency and legitimacy to the dealer. Financial institutions and insurers expect that is where fraud prevention will begin and end, with vehicle record, buyer identity and credit-worthiness confirmation performed on site.
Just to be clear, this is not like selling over the internet or by email, something that has been going on in one form or another for years, long before “disruptors” or disasters like COVID came along. We realize that fighting that reality is just tilting at windmills. Having said that, when these kind of sales have been practiced by professional dealers, it is with the knowledge that behind the dealer there is an identifiable place of business, adding confidence to the purchaser’s decision to buy, knowing that they have somewhere to go back to in case things go wrong.
It’s much easier for unregistered curbsiders to trick consumers when they do not work from identifiable premises.
So, to summarize, s. 4 (2) is there because the public, financial institutions, insurers, regulators, the government, the media, and stakeholders want it there. So do we. To suggest otherwise poses unnecessary risks to consumers, and asking them to sign away those protections (as this proposal suggests) hardly addresses these grave concerns.
4. Limiting Add-On Goods and Services in a Motor Vehicle Sale
The ministry is proposing to prohibit motor vehicle dealers from requiring consumers to purchase add-on goods or services that were not requested by consumers and, in the case of goods, were not already affixed to the motor vehicle.
UCDA says:
It is not necessary because tied-selling is already illegal (Consumer Protection Act). The problem is not the law, but education and enforcement.
5. Limiting the Sale of “As-Is” Vehicles
Under the MVDA, motor vehicles with a current safety standards certificate cannot be sold “as-is” and contracts of sale for “as-is” vehicles must include the following statement:
Vehicle sold “as-is”
The ministry is considering three options to address long-standing consumer harm issues associated with the sale of “as-is” vehicles:
Option 1: Prohibiting the Sale of “As-Is” Vehicles, Except to Wrecking Yards
Option 2: Replacing the Requirements for “As-Is” Vehicles with requirements for “Unfit” Vehicles
Option 3: Requiring “As-Is” Vehicles to include the all-in price of repairs, and Prohibiting the Sale of Safety Certification
UCDA says:
The sale of vehicles on an “As Is” basis has long caused confusion for both consumers and dealers. Many consumers think buying such a vehicle is the same thing as buying a vehicle without a safety certificate, and quite simply that is not the case. The dealer knows little about the unit and the consumer accepts all the risk that the cost to get it on the road someday might exceed their reasonable expectations.
Option 3 – To expect a dealer to put a price on what it would cost to certify such a vehicle is unworkable. How could any dealer possibly know what number to put on such a unit? In fact, it feeds into the incorrect assumption that all such a vehicle needs to get on the road is a safety certificate- and that is often far from the truth.
Similarly, many dealers do not understand what an “As Is” sale really is. Not “roadworthy” could mean the vehicle might need a new water pump, a transmission, framework, body-work, engine or electrical work and not just minor work such as determining whether the horn works or the headlights are operating; that is what a safety check is for.
Option 1 or 2 holds more promise, but Option 2 still carries the risk of misunderstandings between consumers and dealers when an “As Is” vehicle is simply more problematic than a safety inspection could possibly hope to address.
The reality is that Option 2 already exists as OMVIC allows dealers to sell vehicles to consumers without a safety, which is “unfit” and this is NOT the same thing as “As Is”:
https://www.omvic.ca/selling/dealer-guidelines-and-resources/advertising-guideline/
Dealers are permitted to sell unfit vehicles and shall include in the ad the following wording in a clear, comprehensible and prominent manner: “This vehicle is not drivable and not certified. Certification is available for $[include cost of certification].”
The advertised cost of a safety standard certificate should reflect the actual market cost of the service. If a vehicle is roadworthy, dealers are expected to observe the appropriate ethical and professional standards in pricing the vehicle.
Our preference would be Option 1 for “As Is” sales.
6. Requiring Mandatory Continuing Education for Registrants
The ministry is proposing to require all registrants under the MVDA to complete mandatory continuing education prior to applying to renew their registration.
UCDA says:
We support this as a necessary requirement in a mature regulated industry. We like the notion of a course that delivers content online, perhaps in modules, with quiz questions at the end of each module that require a 100% pass. When a question is answered wrong, in an open-book format, the registrant must go back to the module, re-read the content and get the question correct before being able to move on to the next module. We would hope such a course would not take too much time to complete and be cost-effective for registrants.
We do not see this approach of being overly onerous especially when no one will really “fail”, but will be educated instead. It also must be affordable.
a. Should continuing education courses be tied to a registrant’s renewal of registration?
As long as this does not delay the renewal process, if it is online, it could work. For those that choose to do it, an option could be offered to allow registrants to take the course before renewal is pending and, if they do, the pass will reflect when they renew. Another question is how often will the course be required. Annually, every two years, every 4 years? We think it should be every 4 years.
7. Requiring Prompt Payment of Unpaid Loan Amounts
The ministry is proposing to require motor vehicle dealers who agree to pay unpaid loan amounts on motor vehicles that were part of trade-in transactions to do so within five business days.
UCDA says:
We support this, but need to more about the time line. Within 5 days of what? Is 5 days reasonable or realistic?
How do we deal with uncooperative secured parties? Many banks refuse to talk to anyone but their debtor (citing privacy concerns) even though the PPSA requires secured parties to share lien details with any party with an interest in the vehicle. A secured party has 30 days to discharge a lien once it is paid.
8. Expanding Eligibility for the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund
The ministry is considering expanding the eligibility criteria for the MVDCF to enable consumers to receive compensation for additional losses associated with the purchase or lease of a motor vehicle.
Additional eligibility criteria may include:
The motor vehicle dealer has failed to pay any agreed to outstanding loan payments on a vehicle trade-in. This would help to ensure consumers are not at risk of being responsible for payments on both their recent motor vehicle purchase and the motor vehicle that the consumer traded-in; or
The motor vehicle dealer has sold a motor vehicle to a consumer that has serious mechanical defects identified by the Ministry of Transportation. This would help to ensure consumers are not at risk of purchasing a motor vehicle that requires more repairs than expected, or that was sold with a fraudulent safety standards certificate.
UCDA says:
We could support the additional criteria indicated.
It should not cover consumers who buy from curbsiders ie. unregistered sellers.
9. Updating Contract Disclosures
The ministry is proposing to update the disclosure on repairs previously done on a motor vehicle due to an incident by increasing the threshold from greater than $3,000 to greater than $5,000.
UCDA says:
We have always felt the dollar limit is a poor substitute for the “material fact” disclosure requirement because it creates the false impression amongst registrants that if the vehicle has sustained damage of $4,999 they are not required to disclose that to a buyer. Of course, we agree the number is higher overall than it was in 2010, but the need for a number at all is what we question.
10. Updating the CAMVAP Disclosures
The ministry is proposing to replace existing CAMVAP disclosure requirements with the following general statement:
The Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan (CAMVAP) allows consumers to resolve disputes with participating manufacturers about possible defects in a vehicle’s assembly or materials, or how the manufacturer is applying or administering its new vehicle warranty. Please contact CAMVAP for more information about the program and to see if your vehicle qualifies.
UCDA says:
We would prefer to see the disclosure requirement removed entirely as it applies to so few makes and years, with less manufacturers participating such as BMW and Stellantis. Having said that, the proposed language has the advantage of being considerably shorter than what is required now.
Many dealers are using DMS’s so the changes can be made quickly through those platforms. Users of paper forms rely on providers like the UCDA, and we are able to amend fairly swiftly, but a reasonable phase-in would allow old stock to be used up and not wasted.
Consumer education is the better approach here.
11. Adding Flexibility for the Contact Information Included in Advertisements
The ministry is proposing to replace the requirement for registrants to include a business telephone number in advertisements with a requirement to include contact information that the registrant chooses, provided that the same contact information is included in the information that was provided to OMVIC as part of their registration. Contact information could include a business telephone number (cellphone or landline), website, email address, or address of the place of business. Under this proposal, impacted advertisements would still need to note the registered name of the registrant. This proposal would not impact the requirement to provide a motor vehicle dealer’s name and address in a lease or sales contract.
UCDA says:
We support the idea of allowing a phone number to be a landline or cell phone, but not the elimination of that requirement entirely. What is the policy reason?
Similar to the proposal to allow operations from dwellings, why would anyone argue that a dealer should not provide phone numbers in advertisements? It seems counter-intuitive to make dealers more difficult to contact. Moreover, why a dealer would want that in the first place should raise concerns for consumers. It is suggested that this will have little impact on consumers, but we do not agree. If you are trying to contact a dealer it could certainly have a great impact.
The argument this will save dealers money might have made sense 20 years ago when they paid by the line for print ads. However, dealers advertise digitally these days and the idea that not requiring a telephone number will result in dealer savings is spurious.
Also, when a phone number is used in an ad it helps to identify who has placed the ad or who is responding to it, as sometimes those numbers lead OMVIC to unregistered salespeople/curbsiders. Interestingly, at one time OMVIC had stopped supplying phone numbers for wholesalers on their public database for “find a dealer” but they very soon reverted back to providing those numbers, likely because OMVIC realized making wholesalers virtually impossible to contact was counter-productive.
We must keep in mind not everyone is technically savvy, and the elderly still rely on phone numbers as the main point of contact, for example.
12. Expanding the Scope and Powers of OMVIC’s Discipline Committee
The ministry is proposing to broaden the scope and powers of OMVIC’s Discipline Committee to give it authority to consider whether a registrant has failed to comply with any provision in the MVDA or its regulations, and to provide it with the power to suspend, revoke or apply conditions to a registration, in addition to its existing order-making powers. In addition, appeals would be brought to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) rather than an OMVIC Appeals Committee.
UCDA says:
The Discipline Committee was never intended to be a court. It was meant to provide OMVIC an option, in cases of less severity or concern, to mete out discipline of a basic nature, modest fines, education orders, those kind of remedies, in a fast, fair and expedient manner.
Panels are comprised of non-lawyers, or mostly non-lawyers, who are advised on questions of law by lawyers who are paid by OMVIC.
The proof of this low-level of adjudication is the fact, in over two decades of operation, the vast majority of these cases settle without a hearing and of the ones that go to a full contested hearing OMVIC have only lost one or two such cases in all that time.
OMVIC still lose cases from time to time at the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) which is chaired by lawyers generally. This, we think, illustrates an appropriate forum for serious penalties is LAT.
We do not think that an OMVIC Discipline Committee should be given the power to suspend, revoke or apply conditions to a registration. These are matters best left to an independent body, like LAT, as it is the ultimate punishment that can be dealt to a dealer and the Committee is too close to OMVIC for it to be impartial.
One of the hallmarks of adjudication is independence and impartiality – the LAT is independent of OMVIC. The committee and OMVIC are too close. There is an argument to be made that having an independent review of conduct – independent of an OMVIC committee – will promote the view that the process is fair, dealt with by a tribunal with legal expertise, expertise that would promote the need for consistency in decision-making, etc. Justice will be seen to be done.
To do otherwise leaves OMVIC open to challenges based on lack of natural justice.
13. Increasing Fines that OMVIC’s Discipline Committee May Levy
The ministry is proposing to:
Apply distinct maximum fines for individuals (i.e., salespersons) and businesses (i.e., motor vehicle dealers); and,
Increase the maximum fine that OMVIC’s Discipline Committee may impose from $25,000 to $50,000 for individuals, and from $25,000 to $100,000 for businesses.
UCDA says:
While we understand these maximums are rarely applied, even at the $25,000 threshold, to give the discipline panel that kind of authority is a step too far in our opinion. There are few individuals or businesses in our industry, that would not face bankruptcy or business closure over such a punitive maximum should it ever be applied.
Given this, and similar to the arguments we have made under #11, fines as high as $50,000 for individuals or $100,000 for businesses should be left to an independent arbiter, like LAT, where dealers will have a neutral third party adjudicate questions that could mean the end of a career or a livelihood.
14. Prohibiting Cross-Appointments Between OMVIC’s Board of Directors and the Board of Trustees for Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund
The ministry is proposing to prohibit cross-appointments between OMVIC’s Board of Directors and the MVDCF Board of Trustees. This proposal would enhance governance of OMVIC and the MVDCF.
UCDA says:
We take no position on this.
15. Updates to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act to Capture Terms Distinct to Electric Vehicles
The ministry is consulting on how the MVDA and its regulations could be amended to include language on motor vehicle parts that are distinct to an EV.
UCDA says:
Changes are needed here. In addition to the proposals listed, is the disclosure of features, functions and capacity subject to paid subscription. Self-driving, “ludicrous mode”, heated seats and the like may not be available on resale and dealers and consumers need to know this in determining a fair price.
Language needs to be expanded to take into account different modes of propulsion.
EVs are more costly to repair. Old style steel stamped parts are easier and cheaper to fix, they can be “bent back” in shape while aluminum, for example, tends to break or shatter rather than dent. Front-end damage is more extensive in EVs as there is no engine block to absorb impact. Repairs are, on average, much more costly, a fact not lost on insurers.
Battery life is a key disclosure on used EV sales.
16. 2021 Proposals
Between August 3 and September 17, 2021, the ministry sought feedback on potential changes to the MVDA and its regulations that were primarily focused on reducing burden for the motor vehicle sales sector. Informed by the feedback from the 2021 consultation, the ministry is proposing to move forward with three proposals that have remained unchanged since that consultation. They are:
Remove the requirement to return registration certificates. This proposal would remove the requirement for all registrants to return their certificate of registration when ceasing to be a registrant.
Extend the time period for warranty documentation. This proposal would extend the period of time for motor vehicle dealers to provide a warranty seller with required warranty documentation and payments received from seven days to thirty days.
Remove outdated provisions. This proposal would remove provisions that are related to the transition from the previous version of the MVDA. These provisions are no longer operable.
If approved, the ministry is proposing that these three changes would come into force on July 1, 2024.
UCDA says:
We agree.
Other
UCDA further suggests:
17. Code of Ethics – Wholesale
The issue of appropriate disclosures is a hot button issue, particularly in light of the closures of in-person auctions in Ontario. Many dealers incorrectly assume that they do not need to make disclosures when dealing with another dealer.
Due to the nature of on-line auctions, dealers have no opportunity to physically inspect a vehicle before they decide to purchase it. They rely now, more than ever, on honest and fulsome ‘sale by description’. Because dealers cannot perform due diligence in the
same way as they could in the past, they are increasingly relying upon the disclosures that are made to them in the auction listing to inform their decision-making. If a dealer is sold a vehicle that has been misrepresented, they have a limited window to arbitrate the issue with the auction. Furthermore, not all issues are able to be arbitrated with the auction. If any one issue with a vehicle falls below a certain threshold (i.e. S750.00) the auction may outright refuse to arbitrate the matter—this may be the case even if issues with the vehicle, when collectively considered, fall above the monetary threshold.
This issue presents itself as a key opportunity for the regulator, OMVIC, to step-in through reforms and enforcement.
The UCDA is in favour of a proposal to strengthen wholesale fairness between dealers and at wholesale auctions where many of these transactions are conducted, and where many problems arise.
For example, if a dealer sells a vehicle to a dealer at the auction and the engine light is off, but it comes on after 48 hours, this cannot be arbitrated because the time for auction arbitration is only 48 hours. OMVIC has been reluctant to get involved in disputes between dealers as there is no consumer involved. If the buying dealer takes the selling dealer to court, the auction might bar the dealer from doing future business with the auction, so the dealer is left with no recourse.
If a dealer sells a vehicle to another dealer “as is”, the Regulations must make it clear that existing defects must still be declared. Again, some auctions will not arbitrate any complaint on the sale of “as is” vehicles. If the law was clearer, arbitration rules would need to follow suit.
Here’s an example of the kind of issue that can pop up in a dealer to dealer sale, at auction or otherwise. The law is clear that pollution controls must be functioning on all vehicles sold in Ontario. Yet, this seems to be a controversial proposition in some wholesale transactions, where “as is” is interpreted as meaning, “what you see is what you get”.
18. Classes of Motor Vehicle Dealers
We are proposing the classes of wholesale and export be combined to the mutual benefit of both classes.
Our suggested combination of the wholesale and export class would involve amending O.Reg. 333/08 so that registered Ontario motor vehicle dealers in a wholesale/export class are able to buy vehicles from private sources as well as other dealers and to sell vehicles to private buyers and dealers outside of Ontario.
The present definitions of the current classes of dealers unduly restrict dealers from fully operating their businesses as was clear during the pandemic. The changes being proposed provide an enhanced level of commercial flexibility and viability, especially when public emergencies prevent them from carrying on their normal course of business.
Sections 18 to 25 of Ontario Regulation 333/08 made pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 (“MVDA”) provides for classes of motor vehicle dealers and the authorized activities for each class of dealer. These include: general dealers, brokers, wholesalers, exporters, outside Ontario dealer, lease finance dealer and fleet lessor.
The UCDA is concerned with the legislative restrictions imposed on the wholesaler and exporter classes:
Wholesalers: Pursuant to section 21 of O.Reg 333/08, a motor vehicle dealer registered as a wholesaler may not act as a motor vehicle dealer, other than:
- to trade in motor vehicles with other registered motor vehicle dealers
- to sell motor vehicles at an auction, among others, to a person who is located in another jurisdiction and registered in that jurisdiction as a person with equivalent status to a registered motor vehicle dealer.
In other words, wholesalers may not trade in motor vehicles with members of the public.
Exporters: Pursuant to section 22 of O.Reg 333/08, a motor vehicle dealer registered as an exporter may not act as a motor vehicle dealer other than to buy motor vehicles for the purpose of export outside of Ontario.
The Need for Amendment of O.Reg 333/0:
Wholesalers were negatively affected by the pandemic, as their usual sources of inventory, such as auctions, were not available. With a lower supply, many new car dealers, another big source of inventory for wholesalers, retained the used inventory they could obtain for sale to the public. The traditional model for sourcing used vehicles no longer worked for many wholesalers. They looked to sourcing vehicles privately, which, under the regulation, they are not permitted to do since that would mean dealing with the public. This situation persists.
Some wholesalers also wished to access the export market which remained relatively strong during the pandemic due to high American dealer demand. Unfortunately, wholesalers are not permitted to sell to dealers outside of Ontario. They can only deal with “registered motor vehicle dealers”, which by definition, means dealers registered in Ontario. The only exception to this is if the wholesaler sells through a wholesale auction, where the purchaser is a dealer from another jurisdiction with equivalent status to the Ontario registered dealer. Otherwise, only general dealers (retailers) and exporters can sell to non-Ontario dealers.
If a wholesaler decided to change its status from wholesaler to exporter, to allow them to sell to dealers outside of Ontario, they would be restricted solely to that market and lose the right to sell to other Ontario registered dealers. Given that a dealer cannot be both an exporter and a wholesaler, their ability to trade in motor vehicles is severely restricted.
OMVIC are also struggling with these restrictions, as pressure from dealers mounts, they have had to come up with work-arounds that are not ideal:
Thank you for reaching out with your question. We’ve received a few similar inquiries and have some challenges with registering under one entity as both a wholesaler and an exporter. The nature of their activities and the business location requirement cause conflict, making registering them under one entity difficult. For instance, wholesalers are not allowed to involve consumers in their trade, whereas exporters can purchase vehicles from individuals for the purpose of export.
Considering these challenges, we suggest that the applicant has two options if they wish to operate as both a wholesaler and an exporter:
- Register under the General Dealer classification but with some restrictions regarding the business premises. If there are any changes in the business plan, they will have to report the Registrar.
- Apply as separate legal entities.
Until there are some legislation changes, this is how we could accommodate our applicants/registrants.
Other disclosures
19. Out-of- province vehicles
One could argue it is irrelevant to a consumer if a vehicle was registered in Quebec or Manitoba 6 years ago (presumably, it would not bother consumers in those provinces either), it might be difficult for a dealer to be aware of this many years later in Ontario. Dealers should not have to declare it.
20. Rental
With the advent of UBER and LYFT, the whole area of rental / taxi vehicles disclosure needs to be revisited, as well as police cruiser/emergency vehicle disclosure. If someone is required to declare a previous rental not owned by a consumer, why would this not apply to other vehicles used for “hire”? The main reason of course, is that no buyer would know that use was made unless the seller informs them. The same can often be said for rental vehicles of course, which raises the question whether the need to declare rental vehicles might be removed entirely. It was never accurate to say any of these vehicles are less trustworthy than other used vehicles and, in fact, they are probably maintained by owners better than many privately owned used vehicles, as those owners have a vested interest in preserving retail values.
21. Remove delivery date requirement
This requirement is more honoured in the breach. Most dealers and consumers conclude deals with that field in a sale agreement left blank as both sides know the vehicle will be made ready in a reasonable time. Sometimes that schedule can vary due to holidays or mechanic availability or schedule, so some flexibility is needed. Rarely do we receive complaints on this score.
22. Remove replaced panels disclosure
The mere fact that two or more body panels have been replaced, other than bumper panels, is of no interest to a consumer. Previous accident damage is of concern to a consumer and that is already covered. Panels can be replaced due to rust, body-work or other cosmetic reasons and should not be a stand-alone declaration absent any material fact background.