CITATION: Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council v. Abdelsayed, 2026 ONCJ 289

DATE: May 25, 2026

IN THE MATTER OF

the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. B

and

the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A

Between

Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council

prosecutor

and

Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed

Mina Abd Elsayed,

and

Lillian Badie Alkomos Botros Kostandy

defendants

Ontario Court of Justice

Brampton, Ontario

Quon J. P.

Reasons for Judgment

Trial held: September 23, 2025 and February 2, 2026

Judgment rendered: May 25, 2026

Counsel:

B. Stone and B. Bloomberg, prosecutors for OMVIC

Nabil Z. Abdelsayed, unrepresented

Mina Abdelsayed, unrepresented

Lillian B. Kostandy, unrepresented

Charges:

Counts #1 to #13

For the defendant Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed:

(1) NABIL ZAKARIA HABASHY ABDELSAYED of 20 Lakeland Court, Brampton, ON L7A 1G7, on or about 6th day of July, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2013 Acura Tl, vehicle identification number 19UUA8F5XDA800161, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(2) and further that: NABIL ZAKARIA HABASHY ABDELSAYED on or about 6th day of July, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2013 Acura Tl, vehicle identification number 19UUA8F5XDA800161 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(3) and further that: NABIL ZAKARIA HABASHY ABDELSAYED on or about 15th day of February, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2013 Hyundai Sonata, vehicle identification number 5NPEC4AC9DH788945, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(4) and further that: NABIL ZAKARIA HABASHY ABDELSAYED on or about 15th day of February, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2013 Hyundai Sonata, vehicle identification number 5NPEC4AC9DH788945 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(5) and further that: NABIL ZAKARIA HABASHY ABDELSAYED on or about 18th day of August, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2018 Nissan Rogue, vehicle identification number 5N1AT2MVXJC762762, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(6) and further that: Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed on or about 18th day of August, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2018 Nissan Rogue, vehicle identification number 5N1AT2MVXJC762762 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(7) and further that: NABIL ZAKARIA HABASHY ABDELSAYED on or about 4th day of October, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2017 Toyota Corolla, vehicle identification number 2T1BURHE4HC865525, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(8) and further that: Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed on or about 4th day of October, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2017 Toyota Corolla, vehicle identification number 2T1BURHE4HC865525 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(9) and further that: NABIL ZAKARIA HABASHY ABDELSAYED on or about 24th day of May, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2016 Nissan Micra, vehicle identification number 3N1CK3CPZGL255952, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(10) and further that: Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed on or about 24th day of May, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2016 Nissan Micra, vehicle identification number 3N1CK3CPZGL255952 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(11) and further that: NABIL ZAKARIA HABASHY ABDELSAYED on or about 23rd day of September, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2017 Hyundai Sonata, vehicle identification number 5NPE24AF3HH462819, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(12) and further that: Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed on or about 23rd day of September, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2017 Hyundai Sonata, vehicle identification number 5NPE24AF3HH462819 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(13) and further that: NABIL ZAKARIA HABASHY ABDELSAYED on or about 24th day of January, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2017 Nissan Micra, vehicle identification number 3N1CK3CP2HL267000, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

Counts #14 to #26

For the defendant Mina Abd Elsayed:

(14) and further that: MINA ABD ELSAYED, on or about 6th day of July, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2013 Acura Tl, vehicle identification number 19UUA8F5XDA800161, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(15) and further that: MINA ABD ELSAYED on or about 6th day of July, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2013 Acura Tl, vehicle identification number 19UUA8F5XDA800161 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(16) and further that: MINA ABD ELSAYED, on or about 4th day of May, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2014 Hyundai Sonata, vehicle identification number KMHEC4A4XEA118513, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(17) and further that: MINA ABD ELSAYED on or about 4th day of May, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2014 Hyundai Sonata, vehicle identification number KMHEC4A4XEA118513 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(18) and further that: MINA ABD ELSAYED, on or about 5th day of October, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2017 Nissan Versa, vehicle identification number 3N1CE2CP3HL370024, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(19) and further that: MINA ABD ELSAYED, on or about 4th day of October, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2017 Toyota Corolla, vehicle identification number 2T1BURHE4HC865525, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(20) and further that: MINA ABD ELSAYED on or about 4th day of October, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2017 Toyota Corolla, vehicle identification number 2T1BURHE4HC865525 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(21) and further that: MINA ABD ELSAYED on or about 24th day of May, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2016 Nissan Micra, vehicle identification number 3N1CK3CPZGL255952, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(22) and further that: MINA ABD ELSAYED on or about 24th day of May, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2016 Nissan Micra, vehicle identification number 3N1CK3CPZGL255952 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(23) and further that: MINA ABD ELSAYED on or about 23rd day of September, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2017 Hyundai Sonata, vehicle identification number 5NPE24AF3HH462819, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(24) and further that: MINA ABD ELSAYED on or about 23rd day of September, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2017 Hyundai Sonata, vehicle identification number 5NPE24AF3HH462819 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(25) and further that: MINA ABD ELSAYED on or about 22nd day of June, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2013 Acura I2T, vehicle identification number 19VDE1F76DE401684, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(26) and further that: MINA ABD ELSAYED on or about 22nd day of June, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2013 Acura I2T, vehicle identification number 19VDE1F76DE401684 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

Counts #27 to #40

For the defendant Lillian Badie Alkomos Botros Kostandy:

(27) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 6th day of July, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2013 Acura Tl, vehicle identification number 19UUA8F5XDA800161, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(28) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 6th day of July, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2013 Acura Tl, vehicle identification number 19UUA8F5XDA800161 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(29) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 15th day of February, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2013 Hyundai Sonata, vehicle identification number 5NPEC4AC9DH788945, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(30) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 15th day of February, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2013 Hyundai Sonata, vehicle identification number 5NPEC4AC9DH788945 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(31) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 18th day of August, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2018 Nissan Rogue, vehicle identification number 5N1AT2MVXJC762762, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(32) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 18th day of August, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2018 Nissan Rogue, vehicle identification number 5N1AT2MVXJC762762 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(33) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 4th day of October, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2017 Toyota Corolla, vehicle identification number 2T1BURHE4HC865525, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(34) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 4th day of October, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2017 Toyota Corolla, vehicle identification number 2T1BURHE4HC865525 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(35) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 7th day of October, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2016 Hyundai Elantra, vehicle identification number 5NPDH4AE6GH666689, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(36) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 24th day of May, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2016 Nissan Micra, vehicle identification number 3N1CK3CPXGL255952, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(37) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 24th day of May, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2016 Nissan Micra, vehicle identification number 3N1CK3CPXGL255952 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(38) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 23rd day of September, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2017 Hyundai Sonata, vehicle identification number 5NPE24AF3HH462819, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

(39) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 23rd day of September, 2022, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a 2017 Hyundai Sonata, vehicle identification number 5NPE24AF3HH462819 contrary to Section 14(1) and Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

(40) and further that: LILLIAN BADIE ALKOMOS BOTROS KOSTANDY on or about 24th day of January, 2023, at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario did commit the offence of act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a 2017 Nissan Micra, vehicle identification number 3N1CK3CP2HL267000, when not registered to do so as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to Section 32 of the said Act.

Cases Considered or Referred To:

R. v. Baksh, 2022 ONCA 481 (Ont. C.A.), per Trotter, Sossin and Favreau JJ.A.

R. v. Headley, 2018 ONSC 5818 (Ont. S.C.), per Barnes J.

R. v. Johnson, 2011 ONSC 195, (Ont. S.C.), per Hill J.

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299, 40 C.C.C. (2d) 353 (S.C.C.).

Statutes, Regulations, Bylaws, and Rules Cited:

Classification Of Vehicles As Irreparable, Salvage And Rebuilt Regulation (Highway Traffic Act), O. Reg. 376/02, ss. 1(1).

Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, ss. 1, 2(1), 2(2), 2(3), 14(1), 17(1), 116(1)(b)(ii), 116(5), and 117.

General Regulation (Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002), O. Reg. 333/08, ss. 2(1), 2(1)(7), 2.1(1) and 79(1)(c).

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, ss. 7(1(b)(i) and 11.1.

Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. B, ss. 4(1), 4(1)(a), 5, 32, and 32(3).

Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. P.33, ss. 47(3) and 81.

Safety Inspections Regulation (Highway Traffic Act) R.R.O. 1990, O. Reg. 611, ss. 3 and 7.1.

Used Vehicle Information Package Regulation (Highway Traffic Act), O. Reg. 601/93, s. 2.

Vehicle Permits Regulation (Highway Traffic Act), R.R.O. 1990, O. Reg 628, ss. 2(1) and 2.01(1).

Exhibits entered:

Exhibit #1 - 3 photographs taken by OMVIC Investigator Zambri on May 4, 2023, consisting of: (1) photograph of the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, at driver’s side of a black-coloured Nissan motor vehicle; (2) photograph of VIN# 3N1CK3CPZGL255952 from windshield area of motor vehicle; (3) ownership permit of black-coloured Nissan Micra motor vehicle is in the name of the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, that indicates that the Vehicle Brand is “REBUILT” and that the vehicle is “unplated” with two addresses listed on the permit of a Milton, Ontario address and the 20 Lakeland Court address, and dated January 24, 2023 (3 pages).

Exhibit #2 - copy of the Ministry of Transportation history search for VIN #3N1CK3CPZGL255952, dated June 30, 2023, for a black-coloured 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with file #452207175. On p. 1, it indicates the mileage for the motor vehicle as 00126112 KM and the vehicle brand is “Rebuilt”, and the registrant I.D. No. is [removed for privacy]. It also indicates that Dwayne Highton registered as the owner of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle on May 24, 2023, with a licence plate number of [removed for privacy] also attached on May 24, 2023. On p. 2, it is indicated that the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle, as of March 2, 2023, had been the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, with registrant I.D. No. 192505280. Also, the “status” of the vehicle as of June 30, 2023, in regard to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, is noted as “inactive”, and that the odometer reading had been 00125998, and it is also noted that there had been no licence plate attached to the vehicle. Also on p. 2, it is indicated that the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle, as of March 2, 2023, had been 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with an address of 11859 Hurontario St., Brampton and with registrant I.D. No. 20200090. On p. 3, it is indicated that the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle, as of March 2, 2023, had been 812367 Ontario Ltd./2420846 Ontario Inc., operating as Stark Auto Sales, with registrant I.D. No. 181324149 (4 pages).

Exhibit #3 - set of documents regarding a 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle (19 pages):

1copy of Bill of Sale document for the black-coloured Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN# 3N1CK3CPZGL255952 between Revive Auto Sales and the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, dated March 15, 2023 and with a Milton, Ontario address for selling price of $2600 and a total price of $3,000 cash, and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino. The vehicle brand for the vehicle had been indicated as “salvage” (one page).

2copy of a Revive Auto Sales document dated February 17, 2023, in which it is indicated that the mileage for the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle is 125,998 km. It also indicates that the Ins. Co. is Stark Auto and adjuster is named Ben, and that the motor vehicle is located in Napierville, and with an amount stated as $3569.67 (one page).

3copy of Stark Auto Sales Retail Invoice dated January 12, 2023, that indicates that the 2016 Nissan Micra motor with vehicle VIN# 3N1CK3CPZGL255952 had been sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is “sold as is” and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation, and may require substantial repairs at [the purchaser’s] expense, and that the manufacturer warranty on the vehicle has been cancelled, and that the total cost of repairs to this vehicle exceeded $3000, and the vehicle had been previously registered in Quebec. It also indicates that the Nissan Micra motor vehicle had been sold to 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with payment in full of $3,569.67. On p. 4 is an email dated December 28, 2022, between Stark Auto and Revive Auto Sales concerning the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle.

4photographs of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle (5 pages).

5copy of CARFAX vehicle history report dated March 15, 2023, showing the Nissan Micra motor vehicle had been first serviced on Dec. 6, 2016 in Sorel-Tracy, Quebec, and containing an entry on Nov. 29, 2022 in Quebec that the Nissan Micra motor vehicle had been listed as “salvage” and then listed in Ontario on March 2, 2023 as “salvage” and that the new owner had been reported (4 pages).

6copy of a collision repair appraisal document by TD Assurance indicating a loss date of November 17, 2022, for the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN# 3N1CK3CPZGL255952, and for the net estimate repair amount of $11,767.92 after $350 deductible, and that the primary point of impact on the vehicle had been at the rear of the vehicle and that the bumper, tail lights and quarter panel needed to be replaced (6 pages).

Exhibit #4 - copy of a two-page advertisement from www.facebook.com/market place for the sale of a 2016 black-coloured Nissan Micra motor vehicle listed for $9300 with seller’s profile name listed as Mrmr Abdo and with advertised mileage of 126,000 km obtained by OMVIC Investigator Zambri on May 3, 2023 (2 pages).

Exhibit #5 - set of documents regarding a 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle (18 pages):

1copy of Ministry of Transportation document of a history search for VIN #19UUA8F5XDA800161, dated June 30, 2023, for a grey-coloured 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle with file #440978476. On p. 1, it indicates the mileage for the motor vehicle as 00084027 KM and the vehicle’s brand is “Rebuilt”, and the registrant I.D. No. is [removed for privacy]. It also indicates that Billal QAZI had registered as the owner of the 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle on July 6, 2022, with a licence plate number [removed for privacy] attached also on July 6, 2022. On p. 2, it is indicated that the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle, as of June 9, 2022, had been the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, with registrant I.D. No. 209957853 and with licence plate numbered “CWNC300” attached also on June 15, 2022 and removed on July 6, 2022. Also, the “status” of the vehicle as of June 30, 2023, in regard to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, is noted as “inactive”. On p. 3, it is indicated that the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle, as of February 1, 2022, had been 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with an address of 11859 Hurontario St., Brampton and with registrant I.D. No. 20200090 and with odometer reading of 00083663 KM (5 pages).

2copy of a Bill of Sale for a grey-coloured 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle with VIN #19UUA8F5XDA800161 between Revive Auto Sales and the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, dated May 18, 2022, for the selling price of $5,000 and the total price of $5,569 and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino, and that $4900 had been paid in cash, and that a $790 debit had been paid in full on May 27, 2022. The vehicle’s brand had been indicated as “salvage”. It is also indicated that the motor vehicle is sold “as is” and the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may require substantial repairs at the purchaser’s expense, and it may not be possible to register the vehicle to be driven in its current condition. Also, it indicates that the motor vehicle is sold as a damaged vehicle, and the damage estimate is $11756.71 (one page).

3copy of a Revive Auto Sales document dated January 15, 2022, in which it is indicated that the mileage for the black-coloured 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle is 83,663 kms. It also indicates that the vehicle’s brand is “Salvage” and that the Ins. Co. is Stark Auto and the adjuster is named Ben, and that the motor vehicle with VIN #800161 is located in Napierville yard for an amount of $6307.66 (one page).

4copy of a Stark Auto Sales Retail Invoice dated August 25, 2021, that indicates that the mileage for the 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle is 83,663 kms. and with vehicle VIN #19UUA8F5XDA800161, and had been sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at my expense, and that the manufacturer warranty on the vehicle has been cancelled, and that this vehicle has been declared a total loss, and the total cost of repairs to this vehicle exceeded $3000, and the vehicle had been previously registered in Quebec. It also indicates that the 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle had been sold to 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with payment in full of $6,307.66 (one page).

5copy of email document dated August 25, 2021, from Revive Auto Sales to Jerry Cimino concerning the 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle (one page).

6copy of a collision repair appraisal by TD Assurance indicating the loss date of August 16, 2021, for the 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle with VIN #19UUA8F5XDA800161, and for the net estimate of $11,756.71 to repair the vehicle (9 pages).

Exhibit #6 - set of documents regarding a 2013 Hyundai SLI (Sonata) motor vehicle (19 pages):

1copy of a Ministry of Transportation history search document for VIN # 5NPEC4AC9DH788945, dated June 30, 2023, for a blue-coloured 2013 Hyundai SLI motor vehicle with file #440978476. On p. 1, it indicates that the mileage for the motor vehicle is 00068352 KM and the vehicle’s brand is “Rebuilt”, and with the registrant I.D. No. as [removed for privacy]. It also indicates that Olamilekan Ayodele had registered as the owner of the blue-coloured 2013 Hyundai SLI motor vehicle on February 15, 2023, with a licence plate number [removed for privacy] attached also on February 15, 2023. On p. 2, it is indicated that the previous registered owner of the blue-coloured 2013 Hyundai SLI motor vehicle with VIN #5NPEC4AC9DH788945, as of February 13, 2023, had been the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, with registrant I.D. No. 209957853, and it also indicates that no licence plate had been attached to the vehicle. Also, the “status” of the vehicle as of June 30, 2023, in regard to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, is noted as “inactive” (3 pages).

2copy of Bill of Sale for the blue-coloured 2013 Hyundai SLI motor vehicle with VIN #5NPEC4AC9DH788945 between Revive Auto Sales and the defendant, Nabil Zakaria Habashy [Abdelsayed] dated February 10, 2023, for the selling price of $6,150 and the total price of $7000, and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino and that the $7000 had been paid in cash fully on February 10, 2023. The vehicle’s brand had been indicated as “Rebuilt”. It is also indicated that the motor vehicle is sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at the purchaser’s expense, and it may not be possible to register the vehicle to be driven in its current condition. Also, it indicates that the motor vehicle is sold as rebuilt title and that previous accident Repair damages is over $3,000 and that it is previous out of province of Quebec (one page).

3copy of a Revive Auto Sales document dated December 8, 2022, that indicates that the Ins. Co. is Stark Auto and the adjuster is named Ben, and that the 2013 Hyundai SLI motor vehicle with VIN #788945 is located in Napierville yard for an amount of $3482.66 and the vehicle’s brand is indicated as “Salvage” (one page).

4copy of a Stark Auto Sales Retail Invoice document dated October 20, 2022, that indicates that no mileage amount for the blue-coloured 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #5NPEC4AC9DH788945 had been indicated, and that it had been sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at my expense, and that the manufacturer warranty on the vehicle has been cancelled, and that this vehicle has been declared a total loss and the total cost of repairs to this vehicle exceeded $3000 and the vehicle had been previously registered in Quebec. It also indicates that the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle had been sold to 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with payment in full of $3,482.66 (one page).

5copy of a Ben Stark Auto document of three photographs of a motor vehicle (one page).

6copy of a collision repair appraisal document by TD Assurance indicating the loss date of September 23, 2022, for the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN # 5NPEC4AC9DH788945, and that the net estimate of repair is $10,659.93 (8 pages).

7copy of a Can Star Auto Collision Invoice No. 07120 for $621.50 for structural inspection and alignment dated December 29, 2022 (one page).

8copy of a Fast Line Auto Parts Corp Invoice dated December 14, 2022 for $892.70 (one page).

9copy of a Hardial Auto Service Vehicle Alignment Report dated December 29, 2022, for 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle (one page).

10copy of a Quality Body Shop & Collision Invoice document to Revive Auto Sales dated December 30, 2022, for 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle for $3,395.65 (one page).

Exhibit #7 - set of documents regarding a 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle (25 pages):

1copy of a Ministry of Transportation history search document for VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762, dated June 30, 2023, for a black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with file #396044223. On p. 1, it indicates the mileage for the motor vehicle as 00076497 KM and the vehicle’s brand is “None”, and the registrant I.D. No. is [removed for privacy]. It also indicates that Issa M. A. Subaih registered as the owner of the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle on March 30, 2023, with a licence plate number [removed for privacy] attached also on March 30, 2023. On p. 2, it is indicated that the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762, as of March 30, 2023, had been 1793529 Ontario Inc., operating as Seven Speed Motors, with address of 1047 North Service Road East, Oakville, Ontario, with registrant I.D. No. 166543203 and that no licence plate numbered had been attached. Also on p. 2, as of March 28, 2023, the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 had been NMH Autos Sales and Collision Inc., operating as NMH Auto, with address 1145 Fewster Drive Mississauga, Ontario and with registrant I.D. No. 193156398, and with mileage indicated as 00079230. On p. 3, as of August 18, 2022, the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 had been Sally Rashdan with licence plate number [removed for privacy] attached on August 18, 2022 and removed on March 28, 2023, and with mileage of 00067793 KM. On p. 4, as of July 6, 2022, the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 had been the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, with registrant I.D. No. 209957853 and with licence plate number CWTL365 attached on July 27, 2022 and removed on August 18, 2022, and with mileage of 00066331 KM. Also, the “status” of the vehicle as of June 30, 2023, in regard to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, is noted as “inactive”. On p. 5, as of June 16, 2022, the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 had been 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with address of 11859 Hurontario St., Brampton and with registrant I.D. No. 202000930 and with odometer reading of 00066331 KM and with the vehicle’s brand noted as “None”. Also on p. 5, it is indicated that as of June 16, 2022, the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 had been 812367 Ontario Ltd./2420846 Ontario Inc., operating as Stark Auto Sales, with registrant I.D. No. 181324149, and with mileage of 00066331 KM. On p. 6, as of April 29, 2022, the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 had been Monnex Insurance Brokers Limited with address of 2161 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario and with registrant I.D. No. 124893599 and with mileage of 00066330 KM. Also on p. 6, as of March 27, 2018, the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 had been Nissan Canada Inc. with address of 5290 Orbitor Drive, Mississauga, Ontario and with mileage of 00032970 KM as of December 31, 2019. On p. 6, as of April 29, 2022, the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 had been Monnex Insurance Brokers Limited with address of 2161 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario with registrant I.D. No. 124893599 with mileage of 00066330 KM. Also on p. 6, as of March 27, 2018, the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 had been Nissan Canada Inc. with address of 5290 Orbitor Drive, Mississauga, Ontario and with mileage of 00032970 KM as of December 31, 2019. On p. 7, it is indicated that the licence plate number CSYK838 had been attached on August 31, 2021 and removed on April 29, 2022, and also that plate number CESW434 had been attached on March 27, 2018 and removed on August 30, 2021 (8 pages).

2copy of a Bill of Sale document for the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 between the defendant, Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed, and Sally Rashdan dated August 17, 2022, for selling price of $10,000 (one page).

3copy of a Used Vehicle Bill of Sale document for black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 between Revive Auto Sales and the defendant, Nabil Zakaria Habashy [Abdelsayed], dated June 22, 2022, for the total selling price of $5,569 and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino and indicating that $7000 had been paid in cash fully on February 10, 2023. The vehicle’s brand had been indicated as “None”. It is also indicated that the motor vehicle is sold “as is” and the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at the purchaser’s expense, and it may not be possible to register the vehicle to be driven in its current condition. Also, it indicates that the motor vehicle is sold as “damaged vehicle” and that it had been an “insurance Write Off” and that the damage estimate is over $3,000 (one page).

4copy of a Revive Auto Sales document dated June 9, 2022, that indicates that the Ins. Co. is Stark Auto – Ben, and that the adjuster is named Ben, and that the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #762762 has mileage of 66331 KMS and is located in Toronto yard for an amount of $8013.96, and the vehicle’s brand is noted as “None” (one page).

5copy of a Stark Auto Sales Retail Invoice document dated April 19, 2022, indicates that the mileage for the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle is 66,331 kms and that the motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 had been sold to 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, for $7,000 and for a total of $8,013.96, and that the motor vehicle had been sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at my expense, and that the manufacturer warranty on the vehicle has been cancelled (one page).

6copy of an email train document with attached photographs of motor vehicle dated April 19, 2022, entitled Fwd: FW: Vehicle MMON107886 2018 Nissan Rogue … 762762 from Revive Auto Sales to Jerry Cimino concerning the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle (4 pages).

7copy of a collision repair appraisal document by TD Assurance indicating that the loss date had been on March 21, 2022, for the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762, and also stating that the primary point of impact had been on the front of the motor vehicle, and with the net estimate cost of repair of $23,704.25 (9 pages).

Exhibit #8 - set of documents regarding a 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle (23 pages):

1copy of a Ministry of Transportation history search document for VIN #KMHEC4A4XEA118513, dated June 30, 2023, for a blue-coloured 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with file #451965671. On p. 1, it indicates the mileage for the motor vehicle had been 00071710 KM and the vehicle’s brand is “Rebuilt”, and the registrant I.D. No. is [removed for privacy]. It also indicates that Harmandeep Singh had registered as the owner of the blue-coloured 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle on May 4, 2023, with licence plate number [removed for privacy] attached also on May 4, 2023. On p. 2, it is indicated that the previous registered owner of the blue-coloured 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #KMHEC4A4XEA118513, as of February 28, 2023, had been the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, with registrant I.D. No. 211160185 and that no licence plate number had been attached, and with mileage of 00071307 KM. Also, the “status” of the vehicle as of June 30, 2023, in regard to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, is noted as “inactive”. Also on p. 2, as of February 22, 2023, the previous registered owner of the blue-coloured 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #KMHEC4A4XEA118513 had been 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with address of 11859 Hurontario St., Brampton and with registrant I.D. No. 202000930, and with odometer reading of 00071307 KM. On p. 3, it is indicated that as of February 22, 2023, the previous registered owner of the blue-coloured 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 had been 812367 Ontario Ltd./2420846 Ontario Inc., operating as Stark Auto Sales, with registrant I.D. No. 181324149, and with mileage of 00071307 KM (4 pages).

2copy of a Used Vehicle Bill of Sale document for blue-coloured 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #KMHEC4A4XEA118513 between Revive Auto Sales and the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, dated February 22, 2023, for the total selling price of $5,180, and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino, and that $5300 had been paid fully on February 22, 2023. The vehicle’s brand had been indicated as “Salvage”. It is also indicated that the motor vehicle is sold “as is” and the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at the purchaser’s expense, and it may not be possible to register the vehicle to be driven in its current condition, and that the motor vehicle had been previously out of province from Quebec. Also, it indicates that the motor vehicle is sold as “damaged vehicle” and that it had been an “insurance Write Off” and that the damage estimate is over $3,000 (one page).

4copy of a Revive Auto Sales document dated February 8, 2023, that indicates that the Ins. Co. is Stark Auto – Ben, and that the adjuster is named Ben, and that the blue-coloured 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #118513 had mileage of 71307 KMS. and is located in Napierville yard, and it is noted that it is for the amount of $4,612.66, and that the vehicle’s brand is noted as “Salvage” (one page).

5copy of a Stark Auto Sales Retail Invoice document dated August 19, 2021, indicates that the mileage for the blue-coloured 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle is 71,307 kms., and that the motor vehicle with VIN #KMHEC4A4XEA118513 had been sold to 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, for $4,000 and for a total of $4612.66, and that the motor vehicle had been sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at my expense, and that the manufacturer warranty on the vehicle has been cancelled, and that the total cost of repairs to the vehicle exceeds $3000, and that this vehicle has been previously registered in other province or state other than Ontario. The Province, State was Quebec (one page).

6copy of an email train with attached photographs of motor vehicle, dated August 19, 2021, and entitled FW: Vehicle MMQC6899 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid vin…118513 from Bently Dailey of Ben Stark Auto Sales to Jerry Cimino of Revive Auto Sales, concerning the blue-coloured 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle (5 pages).

7copy of a collision repair appraisal document by TD Assurance indicating that the loss date had been on July 18, 2021, for the blue-coloured 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #KMHEC4A4XEA118513, and that the primary point of impact had been the front of motor vehicle and that the net estimate to repair the vehicle had been noted as $9,531.37 (6 pages).

8copy of a page from www.facebook.com/market place advertisement for the sale of a blue-coloured 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with mileage of 71,600 and listed for $12,800, and that the sellers profile name had been listed as Mrmr Abdo. At trial, the OMVIC Investigator had stated that this advertisement had come from the present owner of the 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle (5 page).

Exhibit #9 - set of documents regarding a 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle (12 pages):

1copy of a Ministry of Transportation history search document for VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024, dated June 30, 2023, for a grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle with file #451965671. On p. 1, it indicates the mileage for the motor vehicle as 00051233 KM and the vehicle’s brand is noted as “None”, and the registrant I.D. No. is [removed for privacy]. It also indicates that Tylor Banks registered as the owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle on October 25, 2022, with a licence plate number [removed for privacy] attached also on October 25, 2022. On p. 2, it is indicated that the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024 as of October 5, 2022, had been Woodbine Chrysler Ltd. Of 8280 Woodbine Ave., Markham, Ontario and with mileage of 00052000 KM. Also on p. 2, it is indicated that the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024, as of September 30, 2022, had been the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, with registrant I.D. No. 211160185 and that no licence plate number had been attached and with mileage of 00051111 KM. Also, the “status” of the vehicle as of June 30, 2023, in regard to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, is noted as “inactive”. On p. 3, as of August 12, 2021, the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024 had been 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with address of 11859 Hurontario St., Brampton and with registrant I.D. No. 202000930 and with odometer reading of 00051111 KM. Also on p. 3, it is indicated that as of August 4, 2021, the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024 had been 2706818 Ontario Ltd. of 1-146 Toryork Drive, North York, Ontario, operating as Hot Wheels Car Sales, with registrant I.D. No. 205283562, and with mileage of 00051111 KM. On p. 4, as of July 28, 2021, the registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024 had been Complete Auto Salvage Management Inc. of 11 Greenford Drive, Hamilton, Ontario, with mileage of 00055110 KM. and with the registrant I.D. No. 130897843. Also on p. 4, it is indicated that as of July 28, 2021, the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024 had been Zurich Insurance Company of 400 University Ave., 17th floor, Toronto, Ontario with mileage of 00055110 KM. On p. 5, as of July 22, 2021, the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024 had been Fincham Automotive Supplies Limited of 70 Advance Road, Etobicoke, Ontario with mileage of 00049478 KM. On p. 6, as of March 12, 2021, the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024 had been McCowan Holdings Ltd. Of 898 Milner Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, operating as Morningside Nissan, with mileage of 00049455 KM. Also on p. 6, as of November 26, 2020, the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024 had been Nissan Canada Inc. of 5290 Orbitor Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, operating as Nissan Canada Finance, with mileage of 00046500 KM. On page 7, licence plate number CDHZ947 was attached on October 20, 2017 and removed on March 8, 2021 (8 pages).

2copy of a USDA Wholesale Bill of sale document for grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa Note motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024, dated October 03, 2022, and indicating a distance travelled as 52,000, and listing the seller as the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, and the purchaser as Longman’s Woodbine Chrysler with MVDA Reg. # of 3057635 for the amount of $10,900 (one page).

3copy of a Woodbine Chrysler Ltd. Document dated October 3, 2022, that check #43300 had been issued for the amount of $10,900 to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, for private purchase of 2017 Nissan motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024, and also indicating free and clear of lien (one page).

4copy of a Woodbine Chrysler Ltd. Bank Statement from September 29, 2022 to October 31, 2022, indicating a certified cheque #43300 for the amount of $10,900 had been withdrawn, and attached is copy of USDA Wholesale Bill of sale document for grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa Note motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024, dated October 03, 2022, indicating distance travelled as 52,000, and listing the seller as the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, and the purchaser as Longman’s Woodbine Chrysler with MVDA Reg. # of 3057635 for the amount of $10,900 (2 pages).

Exhibit #10 - set of documents regarding a 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle (26 pages):

1copy of a Ministry of Transportation history search document for VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525, dated June 30, 2023, for a grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with file #389637898. On p. 1, it indicates that, as of September 13, 2022, the registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525 is the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, with registrant I.D. No. 211160185, and that the mileage for the motor vehicle is 00095709 KM and that the vehicle’s brand is indicated as “None”, and that no licence plate number had been attached. Also, the “status” of the vehicle as of June 30, 2023, in regard to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, is noted as “inactive”. Also on p. 1, as of August 24, 2022, the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525 and with no licence plate number attached, had been 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with address of 11859 Hurontario St., Brampton and with registrant I.D. No. 202000930 and with odometer reading of 00095709 KM. On p. 3, it is indicated that as of August 24, 2022, the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525 had been 812367 Ontario Ltd./2420846 Ontario Inc., operating as Stark Auto Sales, with registrant I.D. No. 181324149 and with mileage of 00095709 KM and with no licence plate attached. Also on p. 3, it is indicated that as of July 4, 2022, the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525 had been Monnex Insurance Brokers Limited, operating as Security National Insurance Co., with address of 2161 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario and with registrant I.D. No. 124893599 and with mileage of 00095708 KM and that no licence plate had been attached. On p. 4, it is indicated that as of August 11, 2021, the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525 had been Fagun Shah and with mileage of 00087357 KM and with licence plate [removed for privacy] attached as of August 11, 2021 and removed on July 4, 2022. On p. 5, as of July 29, 2021, the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525 had been 498326 Ontario Limited, operating as Downtown Toyota, with an address of 77 East Don Roadway, Toronto, Ontario with mileage of 00087354 KM and with no licence plate attached. Also on p. 5, as of October 20, 2020, the previous registered owner of the grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525 had been Toyota Credit Canada Inc. of 200-80 Micro Court, Markham, Ontario and with mileage of 00074821 KM. On p. 6, the licence plate number of BFWZ566 had been attached on August 31, 2017 and removed on July 27, 2021 (7 pages).

2copy of a Used Vehicle Bill of Sale document for the grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525 between Revive Auto Sales and the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, dated August 20, 2022, for the total selling price of $7,925 and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino, and indicating that $9,000 had been paid fully on August 21, 2021. The vehicle’s brand had been indicated as “None”. It is also indicated that the motor vehicle is sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at the purchaser’s expense, and it may not be possible to register the vehicle to be driven in its current condition, and that the damage estimate is over $3,000 (one page).

4copy of a Revive Auto Sales document dated August 17, 2022, that indicates that the Ins. Co. is Stark Auto – Ben, and the adjuster is named Ben, and the grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #865525 has mileage of 95,709 KMS, and is located in Toronto yard for an amount of $8,578.00, and that the vehicle’s brand is noted as “None” (one page).

5copy of a Stark Auto Sales Retail Invoice document dated July 5, 2022, that indicate that the mileage for the grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525 is 95,709 kms, and that it had been sold to 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, for $7,500 and for a total of $8,578.96, and that the motor vehicle had been sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at my expense, and that the manufacturer warranty on the vehicle has been cancelled, and that the total cost of repairs to the vehicle exceeds $3000 (one page).

6copy of an email train with photographs of a motor vehicle dated July 5, 2022, entitled Fwd: FW: Vehicle MMON109085 2017 Toyota Corolla vin…865525 from Bently Dailey of Ben Stark Auto Sales to Jerry Cimino of Revive Auto Sales and then forwarded to Jerry Cimino concerning the grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525 motor vehicle (3 pages).

7copy of a CARFAX vehicle history report document concerning the grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525 motor vehicle, dated August 25, 2022. On p. 2 of the report, it is indicated that a police reported accident had occurred on June 9, 2022 with a total loss estimated on June 15, 2022, of $13,212.27, and that the damage had been minor to moderate and that the damage had been to front in rear-end collision with another vehicle, and that the claim for the collision had been $21,790. Also on p. 2, a second police reported accident had been reported on December 29, 2021, with an estimated damage of $2,062.62, to the left rear of the motor vehicle (4 pages).

8copy of a collision repair appraisal document by TD Assurance indicating that the loss date had been on June 9, 2022, for the grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525, and with the net estimate to repair the vehicle being $12,212.27 (9 pages).

Exhibit #11 - set of documents regarding a 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle (17 pages):

1copy of a Ministry of Transportation history search document for VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689, dated June 30, 2023, for a red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with file #400420401. On p. 1, it indicates that as of October 7, 2022, the registered owner of the red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689 is Kadeem Scott with licence plate number [removed for privacy] attached on October 7, 2022, and with mileage of 00075479 KM. On p. 2, as of October 6, 2022, the previous registered owner of the red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689 had been the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, with registrant I.D. No. 192505280 and with mileage of 00075480 KM, and that no licence plate had been attached. The 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle had been branded as “none”. Also, the “status” of the vehicle as of June 30, 2023, in regard to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, is noted as “inactive”. Also on p. 2, as of October 6, 2022, the previous registered owner of the red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689 had been noted as 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with address of 11859 Hurontario St., Brampton and with registrant I.D. No. 202000930 and with odometer reading of 00075480 KM and with no licence plate attached. On p. 3, as of December 9, 2021, the previous registered owner of the red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689 had been Denise Butler with licence plate number [removed for privacy] attached on December 9, 2021 and removed on March 11, 2022, and with mileage of 00073553 KM. On p. 4, it indicates that as of August 12, 2021, the previous registered owner of the red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689 had been 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with address of 11859 Hurontario St., Brampton and with registrant I.D. No. 202000930 and with odometer reading of 00073553 KM and with no licence plate attached. Also on p. 4, as of August 12, 2021, the previous registered owner of the red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689 had been 2706818 Ontario Ltd. Of 1-146 Toryork Drive, North York, Ontario, operating as Hot Wheels Car Sales, with registrant I.D. No. 205283562 and with mileage of 00073552 KM and with no licence plate attached. On p. 5, as of July 23, 2021, the previous registered owner of the red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689 had been Complete Auto Salvage Management Inc. of 11 Greenford Drive, Hamilton, Ontario and with mileage of 00073552 KM and with registrant I.D. No. 130897843, and with no licence plate attached. Also on p. 5, as of July 23, 2021, the previous registered owner of the red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689 had been The Yarmouth Mutual Fire Insurance Company of 51 William Street, St. Thomas, Ontario and with mileage of 00073552 KM and with no licence plate attached. On p. 6, as of August 28, 2018, the previous registered owner of the red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689 had been Ashley Balint with licence plate number [removed for privacy] attached on August 28, 2018 and removed on July 23, 2021, and with mileage of 00064396 on September 1, 2020. On p. 7, as of July 10, 2018, the previous registered owner of the red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689 had been Strickland’s Auto Mart Limited, operating as Affordable Auto Rentals, of 945 Erie Street, Stratford, Ontario with mileage of 00042862 KM and with no licence plate attached (8 pages).

2copy of a Used Vehicle Bill of Sale document for the red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689 between Revive Auto Sales and the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, dated September 30, 2022, for the total selling price of $8,000, and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino, and indicating that $8000 cash had been paid fully on September 30, 2022. The vehicle’s brand for the motor vehicle had been indicated as “None”. It is also indicated that the motor vehicle is sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at the purchaser’s expense, and it may not be possible to register the vehicle to be driven in its current condition and the motor vehicle is sold as is “Accident Repair”, and that it had been a “Previous Insurance Total Loss – Over $3,000 Damages” (one page).

3copy of a Used Vehicle Bill of Sale document for the red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689 between Revive Auto Sales and Denise Butler dated December 1, 2021, for the total selling price of $4,560, and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino, and that $4,560 cash had been paid fully on December 3, 2021. The vehicle brand for the motor vehicle had been indicated as “None”. It is also indicated that the motor vehicle is sold “as is” and the purchaser agrees that the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at the purchaser’s expense, and it may not be possible to register the vehicle to be driven in its current condition, and the motor vehicle is sold as is “Damaged Vehicle” and “Insurance Write-Off” and “Damage Estimate (Over $3,000)” (one page).

4copy of a Revive Auto Sales document entitled, “Payment Form”, dated July 30, 2021, that indicates it is in regard to a red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle and with a “salvage amount” listed as $5650 and HST of $735.00, and payment had been enclosed by cheque for $6385 to a company named “Hot Wheels Car Sales” (one page).

5copy of 6 photographs of a motor vehicle (6 pages).

Exhibit #12 - set of documents regarding a blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle (3 pages):

1copy of a Used Vehicle Bill of Sale document for a blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #5NPE24AF3HH462819 between Revive Auto Sales and the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, dated August 30, 2022, for the total selling price of $11,300 and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino, and that $11,300 had been paid fully on August 30, 2022. The vehicle brand for the motor vehicle had been indicated as “Rebuilt”. It is also indicated that the motor vehicle is sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at the purchaser’s expense, and it may not be possible to register the vehicle to be driven in its current condition, and that the motor vehicle had been “Sold As Is Rebuilt Title” and that the “Previous Insurance Total Loss Over $3,000 – Damages” (one page).

2copy of a Used Vehicle Bill of Sale document for a blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #5NPE24AF3HH462819 between Revive Auto Sales and the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, dated March 24, 2021, for the total selling price of $7,940 and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino, and that $7,940 had been paid fully on March 24, 2021. The vehicle brand for the motor vehicle had been indicated as “Salvage”. It is also indicated that the motor vehicle is sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at the purchaser’s expense, and it may not be possible to register the vehicle to be driven in its current condition, and that the motor vehicle had been “Sold As Is Damaged Vehicle” and that the vehicle is an “Insurance Write Off” that the “Damage Estimate $9954.14” (one page).

3copy of a Revive Auto Sales document dated March 18, 2021, that indicates that the Ins. Co is Impact - London and the blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #462819 has mileage of 21,627 KMS and is located in London for an amount of $6610.50 and that the vehicle brand for the motor vehicle is noted as “Salvage” (one page).

Exhibit #13 - copy of a Used Vehicle Bill of Sale document for a black-coloured 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CK3CP2HL267000 between Revive Auto Sales and the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, dated December 13, 2022, for the total selling price of $4,800 and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino, and that $4,800 had been paid fully on December 13, 2022. The vehicle brand for the motor vehicle had been noted as “Salvage”. It is also indicated that the motor vehicle is sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at the purchaser’s expense, and it may not be possible to register the vehicle to be driven in its current condition, and that the motor vehicle had been “Sold As Damaged Vehicle”, and that the vehicle is an “Insurance Write Off” and the “Damage Estimate $10,841.24” (one page).

Exhibit #14 - copy of 3 pages from www.facebook.com/market place advertisement dated April 19, 2023, at 12:42 PM, and with the seller’s profile name listed as Mrmr Abdo. On p. 1, it indicates that the seller lives in Cairo, Egypt and joined Facebook in 2020. On p. 2 are photographs of items that Mrmr Abdo is selling and includes a 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle for sale for C$12,800 with 71K km and is in Brampton, ON and also a 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle for sale for C$9,300 with 126K km and is in Brampton, ON.

Exhibit #15 - set of documents regarding the blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle (6 pages):

1copy of a Ministry of Transportation history search document for VIN #5NPE24AF3HH462819, dated June 30, 2023, for a blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with file #390306370. On p. 1, it indicates the mileage for the motor vehicle as 00043993 KM and the vehicle’s brand is “Rebuilt”, and the registrant I.D. No. is [removed for privacy]. It also indicates that Tarsem Singh and Sukhwant Kaur are registered as the owners of the blue-coloured 2019 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle on September 23, 2022, with a licence plate number [removed for privacy] attached also on September 24, 2022. On p. 2, it is indicated that the previous registered owner of the blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819, as of September 19, 2022, had been the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, with registrant I.D. No. 192505280 and that no licence plate number had been attached, and with mileage of 00043992 KM. Also, the “status” of the vehicle as of June 30, 2023, in regard to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, is noted as “inactive”. Furthermore, on p. 2, as of September 19, 2022, the previous registered owner of the blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819 had been 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with address of 11859 Hurontario St., Brampton and with registrant I.D. No. 202000930, and with odometer reading of 00043993 KM and with no licence plate attached. On p. 3, it is indicated that as of April 9, 2021, the previous registered owner of the blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819 had been William Butler and with mileage of 00021627 KM, and with no licence plate attached. Also on p. 3, as of March 23, 2021, the previous registered owner of the blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819 had been 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with address of 11859 Hurontario St., Brampton and with registrant I.D. No. 202000930 and with odometer reading of 00021627 KM and with no licence plate attached. On p. 4, as of March 16, 2021, the previous registered owner of the blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819 had been The Cumis Group Ltd. Of 151 North Service Road, Burlington, Ontario and with mileage of 00021627 KM and with no licence plate attached. Also, on p. 4, as of February 20, 2020, the previous registered owner of the blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819 had been Norma McLean with mileage of 00016465 KM and then on p. 5 there had been a licence plate attached of [removed for privacy] on September 17, 2020 and removed on January 29, 2021 (6 pages).

Exhibit #16 - copies of 2 Used Vehicle Bill of Sales for the blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819 (2 pages):

1Used Vehicle Bill of Sale regarding the blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819 between Revive Auto Sales and William Butler dated March 24, 2021, for the total selling price of $7,940 and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino, and that $7,940 had been paid fully on March 24, 2021. The vehicle brand for the motor vehicle had been indicated as “Salvage”. It is also indicated that the motor vehicle is sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at the purchaser’s expense, and it may not be possible to register the vehicle to be driven in its current condition, and that the motor vehicle is “Sold As Is Damaged Vehicle” and that it had been an “Insurance Write Off” and that the “Damage Estimate $9954.14“ (one page).

2Used Vehicle Bill of Sale regarding the blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819 between Revive Auto Sales and the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, dated August 30, 2022, for the total selling price of $11,300 and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino, and that $11,300 had been paid fully on August 30, 2022. The vehicle brand for the motor vehicle had been indicated as “Rebuilt”. It is also indicated that the motor vehicle is sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at the purchaser’s expense, and it may not be possible to register the vehicle to be driven in its current condition, and that the motor vehicle is “Sold As Is Rebuilt Title” and that the vehicle had been a “Previous insurance Total Loss Over $3000 – Damages” (one page).

Exhibit #17 - copy of set of documents for the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819 (6 pages):

1a document from “Impact Auto Auctions” of 1900 Gore Road, London, Ontario entitled, “Not a bill of sale”, in regard to a 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819. On p. 1, it is indicated that the vehicle brand for the motor vehicle is “ON-SALVAGE” with a sale date of March 17, 2021, and a price of $6,610.50 CAD, and with distance driven of 21,627 KM, and a repair estimate of $9,954.14. On p. 2, there is a photograph of the motor vehicle and a note that the loss type had been a “Collision” with primary damage on “Right Front” (2 pages).

2an estimate document from The Cumis Group Ltd. Repair dated January 20, 2021, for a 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819, that indicates on p.1 that the type of loss had been a “Collision”, and the date of loss had been on “January 16, 2021”. On p. 3, it is noted that the net total estimate to repair the vehicle had been $9,454.14 (4 pages).

Exhibit #18 - copy of a Ministry of Transportation history search document for VIN #3N1CK3CP2HL267000, dated June 30, 2023, for a black-coloured 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with file #448592734. On p. 1, it indicates the mileage for the motor vehicle as 00043993 KM and the vehicle’s brand is “Rebuilt”, and the registrant I.D. No. is [removed for privacy]. It also indicates that Parth Rajdev is registered as the owner of the black-coloured 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CK3CP2HL267000 on January 24, 2023, with a licence plate number [removed for privacy] attached also on January 24, 2023. On p. 2, it is indicated that the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CK3CP2HL267000, as of January 11, 2023, had been the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, with registrant I.D. No. 192505280 and that no licence plate number attached and with mileage of 00043204 KM. Also, the “status” of the vehicle as of June 30, 2023, in regard to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, is noted as “inactive”. Also on p. 2, as of December 21, 2022, the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CK3CP2HL267000 had been 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with address of 11859 Hurontario St., Brampton and with registrant I.D. No. 202000930 and with odometer reading of 00043201 KM and with no licence plate attached. On p. 3, it is indicated that as of October 11, 2022, the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CK3CP2HL267000 had been 812367 Ontario Ltd./2420846 Ontario Inc., operating as Stark Auto Sales, of 123 Benny Stark Street, Toronto, Ontario, with registrant I.D. No. 181324149 and with mileage of 00043201 KM and with no licence plate attached (4 pages).

Exhibit #19 - copy of a Used Vehicle Bill of Sale document for the black-coloured 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CK3CP2HL267000 between Revive Auto Sales and the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, dated December 13, 2023, for the total selling price of $4,800 and with salesperson listed as Jerry Cimino, and that $4800 had been paid fully on December 13, 2022. The vehicle brand of the motor vehicle had been indicated as “Salvage”. It is also indicated that the motor vehicle is sold “as is” and that the purchaser agrees the vehicle is sold as is and is not represented as being in a road worth condition, mechanically sound or maintained at any guaranteed level of quality, and that the vehicle may not be fit for use as a means of transportation and may required substantial repairs at the purchaser’s expense, and it may not be possible to register the vehicle to be driven in its current condition, and that the motor vehicle had been “Sold As Is Damaged Vehicle” and that it had been an “Insurance Write Off” and that the “Damage Estimate $10,841.24” (one page).

Exhibit #20 - copy of a Ministry of Transportation history search document for VIN #19VDE1F76DE401684, dated June 30, 2023, for a black-coloured 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with file #447658232. On p. 1, it indicates the mileage for the motor vehicle as 00095771 KM and the vehicle’s brand is “Rebuilt”, and the registrant I.D. No. is [removed for privacy]. It also indicates that Apinash Thangavadivel is registered as the owner of the black-coloured 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with VIN #19VDE1F76DE401684 on June 30, 2023, with a licence plate number [removed for privacy] attached also on June 22, 2023. On p. 2, it is indicated that the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with VIN #19VDE1F76DE401684, as of November 4, 2022, had been the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, with registrant I.D. No. 211160185 and with licence plate number CXHX137 attached on November 30, 2022 and removed on June 22, 2023, and with mileage of 00088913 KM. Also, the “status” of the vehicle as of June 30, 2023, in regard to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, is noted as “inactive”. On p. 3, as of September 9, 2022, the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with VIN #2013 Acura ITL had been 11530003 Canada Inc., operating as Revive Auto Sales, with address of 11859 Hurontario St., Brampton and with registrant I.D. No. 202000930 and with odometer reading of 00088923 KM and with no licence plate attached. Also on p. 3, it is indicated that as of September 9, 2022, the previous registered owner of the black-coloured 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with VIN #2013 Acura ITL had been 812367 Ontario Ltd./2420846 Ontario Inc., operating as Stark Auto Sales, of 123 Benny Stark Street, Toronto, Ontario, with registrant I.D. No. 181324149 and with mileage of 00088923 KM and with no licence plate attached. On p. 4, there are no entries. (5 pages).

Exhibit #21 - 3 Director’s Certificates dated September 9, 2025, issued by Director Maureen Salama pursuant to s. 39 of the Motor Vehicle Dealer’s Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, C. 30, Sched. B., which state that for the three defendants, Mina Abd Elsayed, Lillian Badie Alkomos Botros Kostandy, and Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed, none of them have ever been registered as a motor vehicle dealer or salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealer’s Act, 2002 (3 pages).

Exhibit #22 - copy of a “Letter of recommendation” dated January 25, 2026, for the defendant, Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed, by Jerry Cimino, manager, of Revive Auto Sales, which indicates that the defendants had purchased vehicles that had been rebuilt or salvage for family members for the purpose of using the vehicles for Uber or DoorDash purposes during the COVID pandemic period.

Exhibit #23 - copies of set of documents regarding Cambridge International College of College House, Leoville, Jersey, Britain (4 pages):

1On p. 1, Certificate for International Master of Business Administration dated June 18, 2009 issued to the defendant, Nabil Zakaria Habashy [Abdelsayed], with specialization on Financial Management and on p. 2, a letter addressed to the defendant, Nabil Zakaria Habashy [Abdelsayed], from Dr. Stephen Lawson, College Principal (two pages).

2copy of a transcript of courses completed for the four-year B. Com degree from University of Tanta (Egypt) Faculty of Commerce for the defendant, Nabil Zakaria Habashy [Abdelsayed], from 1980 to May 1984 (2 pages).

Exhibit #24 - copy of the Uber profiles documents for the three defendants (5 pages):

(1) for the defendant, Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed, it indicates 2,704 total trips and journey with Uber for 4 yr 11 mo (pp. 1 to 2).

(2) for the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, it indicates 354 total trips and journey with Uber for 5 yr 7 mo (p. 3).

(3) for Michael (not a defendant), it indicates 547 total trips and journey with Uber for 4 yr 11 mo (p. 4).

(4) for the defendant, Lillian Badie Alkomos Botros Kostandy, it indicates 288 total trips and journey with Uber for 5 yr 7 mo (p. 5).

Exhibit #25 - copy of The Cumis Group Ltd. Repair estimate document dated January 20, 2021, for a 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819, that indicates on p.1 that the type of loss had been a “Collision”, and the date of loss had been on “January 16, 2021”, and on p. 3, the net total estimate to repair the vehicle had been indicated as $9,454.14 (4 pages).

Exhibit #26 - set of documents for a 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle (15 pages):

1copy of a collision repair appraisal by TD Assurance noting the loss date of August 16, 2021, for the 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle with VIN #19UUA8F5XDA800161, and with the net estimate of $11,756.71 to repair the vehicle (9 pages).

2copy of a Carfax vehicle history report document dated February 9, 2022, concerning the grey-coloured 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle with VIN #19UUA8F5XDA800161 and with an odometer reading last reported of 86,663 KM. On p. 2 of the report, it is indicated that a damage event to the vehicle had occurred on August 18, 2021, and that it had been noted that in Quebec on September 16, 2021, that it was “salvage”, and then in Ontario on February 1, 2022, that it had been registered as “salvage”, and that damage had been minor and to the rear and left rear of the vehicle and that the net damage estimate to repair the vehicle had been $11, 756.71 on August 18, 2021 (6 pages).

1. INTRODUCTION

1Oh, the OMVIC man says that we got trouble right here in Brampton City with a capital “T” and that rhymes with “P” and that stands for a pool of cars that have been in accidents, and have been either rebuilt, insurance write-offs, or designated as salvage, and then sold to consumers after being repaired, without them being told by three unregistered motor vehicle dealers about the severity of the damage sustained by those cars from being in an accident.

2Alas, purchasing a motor vehicle from an unregistered car dealer — commonly known as a “curbsider” — is a risky transaction for a consumer, since it would bypass the legal protections provided for by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. B and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A. Moreover, unregistered and unlicenced dealers or sellers of motor vehicles often misrepresent themselves as private individuals, or they pretend to be private sellers, in order to avoid the regulatory oversight of the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (“OMVIC”), which would then also make it difficult for buyers of motor vehicles from “curbsiders” to seek recourse if the motor vehicle is defective, stolen, or has a tampered odometer. The “curbsider” nomenclature is derived from the technique of these unregistered or unlicenced motor vehicle dealers usually meeting prospective buyers by a curb in a parking lot or residential area, rather than at a registered dealership. In addition, “curbsiders” buy and sell multiple vehicles for profit while avoiding motor vehicle dealer regulations and consumer protection laws.

3In Ontario, the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 operate in a complementary and overlapping manner to regulate motor vehicle transactions and to protect consumers. The Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 is an industry specific statute that governs the registration and conduct of motor vehicle dealers and salespersons, by imposing stringent disclosure, advertising, and contractual requirements that are enforced primarily through OMVIC. The Consumer Protection Act, 2002, by contrast, is a broad consumer protection statute of general application that protects consumers from unfair business practices, ensures transparent transactions, and provides rights regarding consumer agreements; and also aims to minimize consumer vulnerability in the marketplace by setting standards for information disclosure, allowing for "cooling-off" periods, and prohibiting deceptive marketing; and it also provides remedies for sellers’ misrepresentations or for misleading, deceptive or unconscionable conduct, and imposes mandatory cancellation and refund rights into specific consumer agreements. And, where a motor vehicle transaction falls within the scope of both statutes, the consumer may rely on the protections of each, with the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 often supplementing the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 by providing additional remedies and enforcement mechanisms. Ontario courts have also recognized that the two statutes are intended to work together to enhance consumer protection rather than displace one another, ensuring that purchasers of motor vehicles receive both industry specific safeguards and the broader protections afforded to consumers generally.

4In the present case, the prosecutors from OMVIC contend that the three defendants, Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed, Mina Abd Elsayed, and Lillian Badie Alkomos Botros Kostandy, who are all from the same family, had been acting as motor vehicle dealers by selling and trading in motor vehicles in the City of Brampton between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023, when none of them were registered as motor vehicle dealers or salespersons as required under s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, and as such, have committed 22 offences under s. 32 of that Act. Furthermore, the prosecution also contends that the defendants had been involved in advertising several motor vehicles for sale in Facebook Market Place and selling or attempting to sell motor vehicles that had been rebuilt after being damaged in accidents, and while selling or attempting to sell their motor vehicles, it is contended that the defendants had been engaged in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representations to the purchasers of those previously damaged motor vehicles, contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and as such, have committed 18 offences under s. 116(1)(b)(ii) of that Act. In other words, the prosecution contends the three defendants were “curbsiders” who had bought 11 motor vehicles from Revive Auto Sales, which is a company that specializes in the purchase of motor vehicles that had been involved in accidents in Ontario or in the province of Quebec from auctions or insurance companies, and then the three defendants had the motor vehicles repaired and then either sold or attempted to sell those 11 motor vehicles to members of the public without telling them about the severity of the damage sustained by these vehicles, as a result from being in an accident.

5On the other hand, in their defence, the defendants contend that the 11 motor vehicles in question had been purchased by them for personal use, which if proven on a balance of probabilities would legally exempt them under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002 from the legal requirement to be registered as a motor vehicle dealer of salesperson under s. 4(1)(a) of that Act, in order to trade or sell motor vehicles to the public in Ontario. In particular, the defendants contend that they had purchased the motor vehicles in question to be used for UBER, SkipTheDishes, or Door Dash purposes during the COVID pandemic from 2021 to 2023, but that UBER would not register these motor vehicles in question for the purpose of transporting passengers, as the motor vehicles had been in an accident. And furthermore, the defendants assert that some of the motor vehicles had also been purchased for family members to use, but the family members did not like driving these vehicles that had been purchased once they had been repaired. The defendants also explained that Revive Auto Sales would not let them test drive any of the motor vehicles they had purchased from Revive Auto Sales for liability reasons, so the defendants would not have been able to drive any of these motor vehicles until the damaged motor vehicles had been towed to a repair shop where the motor vehicles would be repaired so that the motor vehicles could then be rebranded, if required by the Ministry of Transportation, as “Rebuilt” motor vehicles. Moreover, the defendants also submit that they had arrived in Canada during the period of the COVID pandemic and did not know the rules or law in respect to buying and selling motor vehicles in Ontario. In addition, the defendants further submit that the reason that some of the motor vehicles did not have licence plates registered to the vehicles in question is because it would take one or two, or up to three months to repair the motor vehicles that they had purchased from Revive Auto Sales. Furthermore, the defendants also submit that if they had indeed wanted to make a profit in buying damaged motor vehicles to fix and repair them and then reselling them, then they would have bought the motor vehicles at auction for a cheaper price and would not have purchased the damaged motor vehicles from Revive Auto Sales. Moreover, the defendants further contend that they did not make any money on these motor vehicles they had sold to purchasers, as they themselves had to spend thousands of dollars in repairing them to be road worthy. Moreover, the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, who had categorically stated that he and his family members had drove for “UBER”, also argues that he did not need to make money buying and selling cars, since he is employed as a financial controller.

6However, based on the totality of the evidence adduced at trial the three defendants have not met their legal onus in proving on a balance of probabilities that they are exempt under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, from the registration requirements under s. 4(1)(a) of the Act, since the evidence adduced proves that the defendants did not purchase 10 of the 11 motor vehicles at issue for “personal use”. Only the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with VIN #19VDE1F76DE401684, owned by the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, would fall within the “personal use” exemption under s. 5, since the evidence adduced did show that there had been a licence plate registered to the motor vehicle that would have allowed the motor vehicle to be driven on an Ontario highway and that there had been a change of 5250 km on the odometer reading for the motor vehicle, which is a significant change in the odometer reading during the period of ownership of 230 days between November 4, 2022 and June 22, 2023 (which is an average of 22.83 km driven per day), and shows that the motor vehicle had been driven for “personal use” by the defendant or his family members during the length of ownership of 230 days before the motor vehicle had been sold on June 22, 2023 (see Exhibit #20).

7But more importantly, the evidence adduced at trial on the other hand did show that for 10 of the 11 motor vehicles in question, the 10 vehicles had not been purchased by the defendants for “personal use” because of the following circumstances: (1) the defendants had only owned 10 of the 11 motor vehicles for a short period of time from 1 day to 83 days; (2) that the defendants did not registered a licence plate for 8 of the 11 motor vehicles while the motor vehicles had been registered in the defendants’ names, which means that those 8 vehicles could not been driven lawfully on an Ontario highway for “personal use” during the defendants’ ownership of those 8 vehicles; (3) that the change in the odometer reading on 2 of the defendants’ 11 motor vehicles had been only “0” km and “1” km, respectively, before the defendants had sold those 2 motor vehicles, which means that these 2 vehicles had not been used by the defendants as “personal use” motor vehicles; (4) that for 10 of the defendants’ 11 motor vehicles, the 10 vehicles had only been driven individually for less than 1500 kilometers, while the vehicles had been registered in the defendants’ names, which indicates that these 10 vehicles had not been used as “personal use” motor vehicles; (5) that there had been two motor vehicles parked in front of the defendants’ house utilizing the same licence plate number, which infers that 1 of the 2 vehicles could not be driven lawfully on an Ontario highway for “personal use”; (6) that the defendants had advertised several motor vehicles for sale at the same time on Facebook Marketplace and had even informed one buyer named Sally Rashdan that they had two motor vehicles for sale at the same time, which is also an action by the defendants that is consistent with the conduct of a “curbsider” who would have several vehicles available for sale; (7) that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had told OMVIC Investigator Zambri, acting in an undercover capacity, to meet in a public parking lot instead of meeting at the defendant’s residence for the sale of a motor vehicle, which is something that “curbsiders” will frequently do; (8) that only 3 of the 11 motor vehicles had licence plates registered to the vehicles during the defendants’ period of ownership, which means that only 3 of the 11 vehicles could be lawfully driven on an Ontario highway during the defendants’ period of ownership; (9) that for 2 of the 3 motor vehicles with a licence plate registered to it, the 2 motor vehicles had been owned by the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, respectively for only 27 and 43 days, and that the change in the odometer reading for those two motor vehicles had been respectively 364 km and 1462 km during the period of the defendant’s ownership, which is not persuasive evidence that these 2 motor vehicles had been “personal use” motor vehicles; (10) that there had been no evidence adduced at trial that proves that the 11 motor vehicles in question had been used by the defendants for Uber, SkipTheDishes, or DoorDash ride-sharing or food delivery services; (11) that all 11 of the motor vehicles in question had been purchased by the defendants from Revive Auto Sales, which is a company that specializes in purchasing motor vehicles that had been in an accident from insurance companies or from an auction, and then reselling the damaged motor vehicles to the public to be repaired or after they have been repaired, which is not consistent with someone purchasing only one motor vehicle to repair for “personal use”, but is more consistent with the notion that the defendants had purchased 11 motor vehicles damaged in an accident to repair them quickly and cheaply and then to resell the repaired vehicles for a profit; and (12) that the defendants had purchased at least 11 motor vehicles from June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023, which is a large number of motor vehicles being bought and sold during that 12 month period and is more consistent with a business endeavour of buying damaged vehicles, repairing them quickly, and then reselling them than being consistent with someone purchasing a damaged vehicle to repair for “personal use”. Therefore, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants are guilty of committing 12 offences of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” under s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002.

8And, in respect to the “unfair practice” charges, the prosecution had been only able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants had committed 5 of those 18 charges laid under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002. For the “unfair practice” charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendants’ had misrepresented or omitted to inform a buyer or a potential buyer on how long they had actually owned the motor vehicles that they were selling; the actual reason why they were selling the motor vehicles; and on whether the motor vehicle had been in an accident and on whether the motor vehicle had been previously registered in the province of Quebec and on whether the motor vehicle had been an insurance write-off and on the extent or value of the damage sustained by the motor vehicle from an accident. In addition, in one of the Facebook Market Place ads (see Exhibit #14) where the defendants had advertised two of their motor vehicles for sale (the 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle and the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle) they had falsely represented the fact that they were residing in Cairo, Egypt when in fact they were residing in Brampton, Ontario.

9Consequently, as the defendants have not met their legal burden in proving the defence of due diligence on a balance of probabilities, then for the 40 charges laid against the three defendants, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty of committing 17 of those charges while for the remaining 23 charges, acquittals were entered. Of the 17 convictions, 12 of them were for committing the s. 4(1)(a) offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. And for the remaining 5 convictions, they were for the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”, contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

10At trial, 4 witnesses had testified for the prosecution and 2 witnesses had testified for the defence. For the prosecution, the witnesses were: (1) Investigator Zambri from OMVIC; (2) Sally Rashdan, the purchaser of the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle from the defendants; and (3) Jerry Cimino, the manager of Revive Auto Sales, the company that had who sold the 11 motor vehicles at issue to the defendants; and (4) Jeremy Mark, an employee from Woodbine Chrysler, a motor vehicle dealership that had purchased from the defendants one of the 11 motor vehicles at issue. And, for the defence the witnesses were: (1) Nabil Abdelsayed, a defendant and (2) Mina Abdelsayed, a defendant.

11The trial of these regulatory offences had been held on September 23, 2025 and February 2, 2026. After final submissions were made by the prosecution and the defendants, judgment was reserved and adjourned to May 25, 2026, for the judgment to be rendered. These therefore are the written reasons for judgment:

2. BACKGROUND

12The three defendants in the case at bar are from the same family. The defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed is married to the defendant Lillian Kostandy and the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, is the son of the defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed and Lillian Kostandy. The defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, testified that he and his family had arrived in Canada from Egypt during the COVID pandemic and had wanted to buy inexpensive vehicles so that they could drive for UBER. The three defendants presently reside at 20 Lakeland Court in the City of Brampton. Previously the defendants had resided in Milton, Ontario.

13OMVIC Investigator Zambri had testified that OMVIC had received an anonymous complaint that unregistered motor vehicles were being sold in a residential neighbourhood at the address of 20 Lakeland Court in the City of Brampton by an unregistered dealer, otherwise commonly known as a “curbsider”. A file was created by OMVIC on January 12, 2023 in respect to the complaint. OMVIC Investigator Zambri was assigned the file and said that he had started his investigation on March 31, 2023. Then on Tuesday, April 18, 2023, at 1:15 p.m., OMVIC Investigator Zambri said he had attended 20 Lakeland Court in a plain clothes capacity and had covertly conducted surveillance of that residence. He also said that he had observed two motor vehicles parked in front of that house that were both bearing the same licence plate number of “CWTL365”. One motor vehicle was a Volkswagen Jetta and the other was a Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle. OMVIC Investigator Zambri then did a search of that particular licence plate on the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) website on April 19, 2023, and said he had received information that the licence plate had been registered to a black-coloured Volkswagen Jetta and that the registered owner was a male person named, “Nabil Abdelsayed”, with driver’s licence number [removed for privacy]. Investigator Zambri also testified that Nabil Abdelsayed is also assigned a unique identifier number of “209957853”, known as a R.I.N. number. Investigator Zambri said that the R.I.N. identifier (Registrant Identification Number) can be used to track the history of a person’s or a business’s ownership or registration of motor vehicles in Ontario.

14In addition, OMVIC Investigator Zambri said he also did a Ministry of Transportation query of the Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #KMHEC4A4XEA118513 and said that the licence plate number “CWTL365” had not been registered to that vehicle and that the registered owner of that vehicle was the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, who has a R.I.N. of “211160185”. Zambri also said the query of the Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle also revealed that it had no licence plate attached to it and that had it had been registered as “unfit”.

15Furthermore, OMVIC Investigator Zambri testified that in his investigation he had observed an advertisement on May 3, 2023, for the sale of a 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle on Facebook Market Place, a digital classifieds platform built into the Facebook app and website (see Exhibit #4). Investigator Zambri said that he then called the seller of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle, posing as a consumer, enquiring about the motor vehicle for sale and agreed to meet the seller on May 4, 2023, to view the motor vehicle. The meeting was then recommended by the seller for the address of 240 Wanless Drive, in Brampton, which is a strip plaza. At approximately 10:21 a.m. on May 4, 2023, Investigator Zambri, in an undercover capacity as a potential buyer, then observed a black-coloured Nissan Micra motor vehicle enter the parking lot of the strip plaza. Investigator Zambri then said he had observed the licence plate number of “CXHX400” on the Nissan Micra motor vehicle. Investigator Zambri also said that he had observed the lone driver was a male person with light brown skin who was in his 60s, and had been between 5’-11” and 6’-0” in height, and had a pot belly and short black hair, and had been wearing eye glasses. Investigator Zambri then asked the male person driving the Nissan Micra motor vehicle if he was “Nabil”, which the male driver had replied that he was. Investigator Zambri then pointed out during his testimony that the defendant sitting in the courtroom was the person he had met driving the Nissan Micra motor vehicle.

16In addition, Investigator Zambri testified that Nabil Abdelsayed had shown Investigator Zambri the permit for the motor vehicle which had been in the name of the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, who was Nabil Abdelsayed’s wife. Investigator Zambri then said that Nabil Abdelsayed had informed him that they had owned the motor vehicle for a year and had wanted to buy a bigger motor vehicle with 7 seats. Investigator Zambri also testified that the status of the motor vehicle on the permit indicated that the vehicle’s status was “unfit”, which Investigator Zambri explained meant that the Nissan Micra motor vehicle either did not have a licence plate registered to it or that a safety certificate had not been issued for the motor vehicle. In addition, Investigator Zambri said that the permit for the Nissan Micra motor vehicle also indicated that the motor vehicle was “unplated”. Investigator Zambri also said that he had observed licence plate number “CXHX400” on the Nissan Micra motor vehicle.

17Investigator Zambri said that he had also asked Nabil Abdelsayed if the motor vehicle had been in an accident since the permit had stated the vehicle’s brand was “Rebuilt”. For Nabil Abdelsayed’s answer to Investigator Zambri’s question, Investigator Zambri said that Nabil Abdelsayed had stated that the motor vehicle had damage to its bumper and tail lights. Investigator Zambri then said he had asked Nabil Abdelsayed what had been the value of the damage to the motor vehicle, but then said that Nabil Abdelsayed did not reply with an amount and had instead told Investigator Zambri that it had been repaired by insurance.

18Furthermore, OMVIC Investigator Zambri said that Nabil Abdelsayed then said that he would sell the Nissan Micra motor vehicle at the lowest price of $8800. In addition, Investigator Zambri questioned Nabil Abdelsayed about the Milton, Ontario address on the permit shown to him and said that Nabil Abdelsayed had replied that he had moved 4 months ago to 20 Lakeland Court in Brampton. Investigator Zambri then said he would think about it and then got back into his car at 10:40 a.m.

19Moreover, OMVIC Investigator Zambri testified that he had taken photographs of the seller of the Nissan Micra motor vehicle in the motor vehicle, photographs of the exterior of the Nissan Micra motor vehicle, and a photograph of the permit for the Nissan Micra motor vehicle (see Exhibit #1). In addition, OMVIC Investigator Zambri said he then conducted a VIN number search on VIN #3N1CK3CPZGL255952 for the Nissan Micra motor vehicle that had been registered to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy. OMVIC Investigator Zambri also said he obtained a judicial authorization for a search warrant of Revive Auto Sales and had obtained the Bill of Sale for the Nissan Micra that Revive Auto Sales had sold to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, and for other vehicles purchased by the defendants from Revive Auto Sales. Investigator Zambri also said that the R.I.N. identifier for Lillian Kostandy was “192505280”.

20OMVIC Investigator Zambri also said he did a history search of the R.I.N. identifiers for Nabil Abdelsayed, Mina Abd Elsayed, and Lilian Kostandy, and then obtained a list of motor vehicles associated to their R.I.N. identifiers, and then sent out canvas letters to the current owners of the motor vehicles that had been previously owned by the three defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed, Mina Abd Elsayed, and Lillian Kostandy.

21From his investigation, OMVIC Investigator Zambri had also identified that in the years 2022 and 2023, the three defendants had bought 11 motor vehicles from Revive Auto Sales located in the City of Brampton. All 11 motor vehicles had been damaged in accidents and had been either branded as “rebuilt” or “none” under the classifications for damaged motor vehicles. For 10 of the 11 motor vehicles, the defendants had sold the vehicles after only being the registered owners of the 10 motor vehicles for a short period, ranging from 1 day to 83 days. For the one motor vehicle that had been owned by the defendants for more than 90 days, the registered owner of that motor vehicle had been the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, who had that motor vehicle for 230 days before he sold the motor vehicle.

22The information with the 40 charges laid against the three defendants was then received by the Brampton Provincial Offences Court on July 27, 2023, and summonses were then issued by the court for the three defendants to appear on December 5, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in courtroom B2, in the Brampton Provincial Offences Courthouse. OMVIC Investigator Zambri then personally served the summonses on the three defendants on August 3, 2023.

(a) The three defendants face 40 charges altogether.

(i) Nabil Abdelsayed has 13 charges:

23The defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, has 7 charges under s. 4(1)(a) for the offence of acting as a motor vehicle dealer by selling and trading in motor vehicles without being registered as a motor vehicle dealer under s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002: counts #1, #3, #5, #7, #9, #11, #13 and 6 charges under ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 for engaging in an unfair practice: counts #2, #4, #6, #8, #10, #12.

(ii) Mina Abd Elsayed has 13 charges:

24The defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, has 7 charges under s. 4(1)(a) for the offence of acting as a motor vehicle dealer by selling and trading in motor vehicles without being registered as a motor vehicle dealer under s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002: counts #14, #16, #18, #19, #21, #23, #25 and 6 charges under ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 for engaging in an unfair practice: counts #15, #17, #20, #22, #24 and #26.

(iii) Lillian Kostandy has 14 charges:

25The defendant, Lillian Kostandy, has 8 charges under s. 4(1)(a) for the offence of acting as a motor vehicle dealer by selling and trading in motor vehicles without being registered as a motor vehicle dealer under s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002: counts #27, #29, #31, #33, #35, #36, #38, #40 and 6 charges under ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 for engaging in an unfair practice: counts #28, #30, #32, #34, #37, and #39.

(b) None of the three defendants had been registered as a motor vehicle dealer or a sales person with OMVIC under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002.

26In addition, as evidence by the OMVIC Director’s Certificates entered as Exhibit #21, none of the three defendants had been registered as a motor vehicle dealer or a sales person with OMVIC under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002.

(c) the three defendants had been the registered owners of at least 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 and June 30, 2023.

27Investigator Zambri had identified 11 motor vehicles that had been owned or registered in the three defendants’ names between June 9, 2022 and June 30, 2023, the date when the Ministry of Transportation documents of motor vehicle VIN searches were conducted (see Exhibits #2, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #15, #18, and #20.

(1) a black-coloured 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CK3CPZGL255952 registered to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy (Exhibit #2).

(2) a grey-coloured 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle VIN #19UUA8F5XDA800161, registered to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed (Exhibit #5).

(3) a blue-coloured 2013 Hyundai SLI motor vehicle with VIN #5NPEC4AC9DH788945, as of February 13, 2023, had been registered to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed (Exhibit #6).

(4) a black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762, as of July 6, 2022, had been registered to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed (Exhibit #7).

(5) a blue-coloured 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #KMHEC4A4XEA118513, as of February 28, 2023, had been registered to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed (Exhibit #8).

(6) a grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024, as of September 30, 2022, had been registered to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed (Exhibit #9).

(7) a grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525, as of September 13, 2022, had been registered to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed (Exhibit #10).

(8) a red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689, as of October 6, 2022, had been registered to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy (Exhibit #11).

(9) a blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819, as of September 19, 2022, had been registered to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy (Exhibit #15).

(10) a black-coloured 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CK3CP2HL267000, as of January 11, 2023, had been registered to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy (Exhibit #18).

(11) a black-coloured 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with VIN #19VDE1F76DE401684, as of November 4, 2022, had been registered to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed (Exhibit #20).

(d) only 3 of the 11 motor vehicles registered to the three defendants had a licence plate attached during the period of ownership.

28For the 11 motor vehicles in question, only 3 of them had licence plates attached or registered to one of the three defendants during the period in which one of the three defendants were the vehicle’s registered owners. This means that only 3 of the 11 motor vehicles at issue could be lawfully driven on an Ontario highway during the period of ownerships by the respective defendants of these 3 motor vehicles. For the 8 motor vehicles that did not have licence plates registered to them during the period of the defendants’ ownership the 8 motor vehicles could not be lawfully driven on an Ontario highway. The three licence plates registered to a specific motor vehicle of the 11 motor vehicles are the following:

(1) “CWNC300” VIN #19UUA8F5XDA800161, dated June 30, 2023, for a grey-coloured 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle, that had been registered to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, and had been attached on June 15, 2022 and removed on July 6, 2022 (see Exhibit #5) The 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle had a change in the odometer reading of 364 km during the period of ownership by the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, of 27 days.

(2) “CWTL365” had been attached to the black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 that had been registered to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, and had been attached on July 27, 2022 and removed on August 18, 2022 (see Exhibit #7). The 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle had a change in the odometer reading of 1,462 km during the period of ownership by the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, of 43 days.

(3) “CXHX137” had been attached to the black-coloured 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with VIN #19VDE1F76DE401684, that had been registered to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, and had been attached on November 30, 2022 and removed on June 22, 2023 (see Exhibit #20). The 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle had a change in the odometer reading of 5,250 km during the period of ownership by the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, of 230 days.

(e) only 1 of the 11 motor vehicles registered to the three defendants had any significant change in the odometer reading during their period of ownership of the vehicle.

29For 10 of the 11 motor vehicles in question, the change in the odometer reading for those 10 motor vehicles during the period of ownership by the defendants were respectively the following: 114 km, 364 km, 133 km, 1462 km, 403 km, 889 km, 44 km, 0 km, 1 km, and 789 km. Only the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with VIN #19VDE1F76DE401684 had a significant change in the odometer reading of 5250 km during the defendant Mina Abd Elsayed’s period of ownership of 230 days.

(f) only 1 of the 11 motor vehicles registered to the three defendants had been owned by the defendants for more than 90 days

30For 10 of the 11 motor vehicles in question, the 9 motor vehicles were owned for less than 83 days by the defendants and were owned respectively for the following days of: 27 days, 2 days, 43 days, 83 days, 4 days, 13 days, 21 days, 65 days, 5 days, and 1 day. Only the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with VIN #19VDE1F76DE401684 had been owned by the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, for more than 83 days and it had been for a period of ownership of 230 days before the motor vehicle had been sold.

(g) all of the 11 motor vehicles registered to the three defendants had been involved in an accident and were purchased from Revive Auto Sales

31All of the 11 motor vehicles in question had been involved in an accident and had been purchased by the defendants from Revive Auto Sales, which is an auto salvage company located in the City of Brampton that specializes in purchasing motor vehicles that had been in an accident from insurance companies as insurance write-offs or from an auction and then reselling them as rebuildable motor vehicles. Revive Auto Sales also has an inventory of motor vehicles for sale that includes salvage motor vehicles, clean title vehicles, refurbished vehicles, and run and drive motor vehicles.

(h) the defendants had advertised that they had 2 motor vehicles for sale at the same time

32The defendants had advertised 2 motor vehicles that they were the registered owners for sale at the same time in Facebook marketplace (see Exhibit #14), as well as the defendants had also informed a buyer named, Sally Rashdan, on August 18, 2022, that they were selling two of their vehicles at the same time, namely a Dodge Durango motor vehicle and the Nissan Rogue motor vehicle.

(i) 4 members of the defendants’ family had been registered with UBER Canada Inc.

33Furthermore, 4 family members of the defendants have been registered as drivers with Uber Canada Inc. as evidence by Exhibit #24. However, no evidence had been adduced at trial that any of the 11 motor vehicles in question had actually been used for UBER, SkipTheDishes, or Door Dash purposes. More importantly, the defendants testifying that the motor vehicles had been bought for the intention of using them for those delivery services does not mean they actually were indeed used for that purpose. In addition, the letter (Exhibit #22) from Jerry Cimino, manager of Revive Auto Sales, stating that the motor vehicles at issue had been purchased by the defendants to use for UBER is also not evidence that the motor vehicles purchased from Revive Auto Sales had been actually used for UBER, SkipTheDishes, or Door Dash purposes, considering that for 10 of the 11 motor vehicles at issue during the period when the defendants were the registered owners the odometer reading for those 10 motor vehicles had only changed respectively from 0 km to less than 1500 km. Only one of the 11 motor vehicles had an odometer reading change of 5250 km. Moreover, only 3 of the 11 motor vehicles at issue had a licence plate registered to the vehicle, which means that 8 of the 11 motor vehicles could not be driven on an Ontario highway during the period of the defendants’ ownership of those 8 motor vehicles for the purposes of driving for UBER.

3. THE CHARGES

34As stated in the Part III Information numbered 23-6334 that was received by the court and commenced on July 27, 2023, the three defendants, Nabil Z. Abdelsayed, Mina Abdelsayed, and Lillian B. Kostandy, have been charged with committing a combined 40 Part III regulatory offences under both the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. B and the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A. The 40 charges are related to 11 motor vehicles that the three defendants sold or attempted to sell in 2022 and 2023. Of the 40 charges, 22 are offences contrary to s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 while the other 18 charges are offences contrary to s. 14(1) and s. 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

35For the 22 charges under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. B, the three defendants were charged individually in the years 2022 and 2023 with committing at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, the offence of “act as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a specific motor vehicle when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a), and thereby committed an offence pursuant to s. 32 of the said Act.

36And, for the 18 charges under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S. O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, the three defendants were charged individually in the years 2022 and 2023 with committing at the City of Brampton in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, the offence of “engage in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of a particular motor vehicle contrary to s. 14(1) and s. 17(1), and thereby committed an offence pursuant to s. 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act.

4. ISSUES

37The following are issues that have to be resolved in determining whether the prosecution has proven that the three defendants have committed their respective charges beyond a reasonable doubt:

(a) Has the prosecution met their onus in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the three defendants had individually traded in motor vehicles as a motor vehicle dealer when they had not been registered to do so contrary to s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act?

(b) What are the indicia that proves that the defendants had been acting as “curbsiders” in their trade of the 11 motor vehicles at issue?

(c) What are the indicia that proves that the defendants had not purchased the 11 motor vehicles at issue for “personal use”?

(d) Pursuant to s. 47(3) of the Provincial Offences Act, have the defendants met their burden in proving on a balance of probabilities that the 11 motor vehicles sold by them had been for “personal use”, as an exemption under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act?

(e) Is there an air of reality to the defendants contention that they bought all 11 motor vehicles at issue for “personal use” for the purposes of driving for Uber, SkipTheDishes, or Door Dash companies, as an exemption under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act?

(f) If the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that all three defendants have committed the actus reus of the 40 offences that they have been individually charged with committing, then have the three defendants met their respective legal burden in proving on a balance of probabilities the defence of due diligence that they had individually taken all reasonable care in the circumstances in preventing or avoiding committing those their respective 40 offences or that the defendants had mistakenly, but reasonably believed, that their actions fell under a legal exemption?

5. APPLICABLE LAW

(A) Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. B

38Under s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. B, it states that no person shall act as a motor vehicle dealer unless the person is registered as a motor vehicle dealer under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002:

Prohibition

4(1) No person shall,

(a) act as a motor vehicle dealer unless the person is registered as a motor vehicle dealer under this Act; or

(b) act as a salesperson unless he or she is registered as a salesperson.

39Furthermore, if one of the three defendants is convicted of committing the offence of acting as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of a motor vehicle when not registered to do so under s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, then he or she would be guilty of an offence under s. 32 of that Act, and then under s. 32(3), the convicted defendant is liable, as an individual, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both. In addition, according to s. 33(1) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, if one of the three defendants is convicted of an offence under this Act, the court making the conviction may, in addition to any other penalty, order the person convicted to pay compensation or make restitution [emphasis is mine below]:

Offence

32(1) A person is guilty of an offence if the person,

(a) furnishes false information in any application under this Act or in any statement or return required under this Act;

(b) fails to comply with any order, other than an order made under section 17, direction or other requirement under this Act; or

(c) contravenes or fails to comply with any section of this Act or the regulations made under this Act other than a code of ethics established under section 43.

Corporations

(2) An officer or director of a motor vehicle dealer is guilty of an offence who fails to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from committing an offence mentioned in subsection (1).

Penalties

(3) An individual who is convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or both, and a corporation that is convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $250,000.

Minimum penalty

(4) The minimum fine upon conviction for an offence under subsection 4(1) is $2,500. [the minimum fine was increased to $5,000 on December 3, 2023 under the Less Red Tape, More Common Sense Act, 2023, S.O. 2023, c. 20, Sched. 10, s. 1]

Limitation

(5) No proceeding under this section shall be commenced more than two years after the facts upon which the proceeding is based first came to the knowledge of the director.

Orders for compensation, restitution

33(1) If a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, the court making the conviction may, in addition to any other penalty, order the person convicted to pay compensation or make restitution.

If insurance has paid

(2) If an order is made in a person’s favour under subsection (1) and that person has already received compensation or restitution from an insurer or the Fund, the person ordered to pay the compensation or make restitution shall deliver the amount to the insurer or the Fund, as the case may be.

40However, s. 5 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 provides an exemption to s. 4, and provides that an individual who trades in a motor vehicle on his or her own account or on the account of a member of the individual’s family is exempt from the prohibition and registration requirements under section 4 of acting as a motor vehicle dealer unless the person is registered as a motor vehicle dealer under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, if the motor vehicle is used primarily for the “personal use” of the individual or a member of his or her family:

Exemption

5. An individual who trades in a motor vehicle on his or her own account or on the account of a member of the individual’s family is exempt from the registration requirements under section 4, if the motor vehicle is used primarily for the personal use of the individual or a member of his or her family.

41Moreover, under s. 2(1) of the General Regulation (Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002), O. Reg. 333/08, a list of class of persons are set out that are exempt from the Act and the regulations. Under s. 2(1)(item #7), it provides an exemption for “a person that trades in a motor vehicle that is used or to be used by the person as sole proprietor for the purpose of carrying on the person’s business or for the personal use of the person or a member of the person’s family, but not if the person is in the business of trading in motor vehicles or repairing them [emphasis is mine below]:

Exemption of certain persons from Act

2(1) The classes of persons described in each of the following paragraphs are exempt from the Act and the regulations in connection with carrying on the activities described in the paragraph:

1. A person who arranges for and conducts an auction of motor vehicles and the person’s employees and agents acting for the purpose of the auction if the conditions set out in subsection (3) are satisfied.

2. A person who buys one or more motor vehicles for the purpose of wrecking or dismantling them if, after buying them, the person wrecks or dismantles the vehicles in accordance with the Highway Traffic Act and the regulations made under it and does not trade in the vehicles.

3. A person who trades in a motor vehicle in the course of performing the person’s duties under an order of a court.

4. An assignee, a custodian, a liquidator, a receiver, a trustee or another person, if the assignee, custodian, liquidator, receiver, trustee or other person trades in a motor vehicle in the course of performing the person’s duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada), the Business Corporations Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada), the Courts of Justice Act or the Winding-up and Restructuring Act (Canada).

5. An executor or estate trustee who trades in a motor vehicle in the course of performing the person’s duties or a person who arranges for and conducts an auction to make such a trade on behalf of an executor or estate trustee.

6. A barrister and solicitor who trades in a motor vehicle in the course of acting in his or her professional capacity.

7. A person that trades in a motor vehicle that is used or to be used by the person as sole proprietor for the purpose of carrying on the person’s business or for the personal use of the person or a member of the person’s family, but not if the person is in the business of trading in motor vehicles or repairing them.

8. A person that trades in a motor vehicle that is used or to be used by an individual who is a director, officer or employee of the person for the purpose of carrying on the person’s business or for the personal use of the individual or a member of the individual’s family, but not if the person is in the business of trading in motor vehicles or repairing them.

9. A person who trades in one or more power-assisted bicycles equipped with both a pedalling device and an auxiliary motor.

10. A person who leases a motor vehicle as lessor if,

i. the person does not own the vehicle,

ii. the lessee does not buy the vehicle at the end of the term of the lease,

iii. the lease is for a term of no more than 120 consecutive days,

iv. the lessor has filed with the registrar, upon request, a declaration stating that the lessor will not trade in the vehicle after the vehicle is no longer going to be leased, except to lease it as described in this paragraph, and

v. the lessor does not trade in the vehicle after the vehicle is no longer leased, except to lease it as described in this paragraph.

11. A receiver and manager appointed under section 21 of the Act that acts under that section.

12. A person who sells a stock of motor vehicles on behalf of their owner by means of an auction open to the public if,

i. the vehicles were owned in connection with a business of the owner of the vehicles and the sale of the vehicles is part of the sale of the assets of that business for the purposes of the business ceasing operations,

ii. the auction is held at the owner’s place of business or at another location that the person arranges and that is suitable for the auction, and

iii. the person who sells the stock of the vehicles has been retained on a temporary basis solely for the purpose of the ceasing operations mentioned in subparagraph i and does not acquire a property interest in any of the vehicles.

13. A registered charity within the meaning of subsection 248 (1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) that acts as such.

14. A creditor, other than a registrant, who,

i. lawfully takes possession of a debtor’s motor vehicle or has a lawful lien against the vehicle, and

ii. sells the vehicle to or through a registered motor vehicle dealer or through a person who is exempt under paragraph 15.

15. A person who,

i. after a creditor, other than a registrant, has lawfully taken possession of a debtor’s motor vehicle, takes possession of the vehicle from the creditor and sells it to or through a registered motor vehicle dealer, and

ii. is not otherwise in the business of trading in or repairing motor vehicles.

16. A not-for-profit corporation that assists a person in making a decision regarding a trade in a motor vehicle if,

i. before providing the assistance, the corporation discloses to the person the amounts that the corporation charges or receives from any person in connection with providing the assistance,

ii. the corporation does not have a property interest in the vehicle,

iii. the corporation does not handle the person’s payment for the trade in the vehicle,

iv. the corporation makes reasonable efforts to ensure that no member of the corporation is a registrant,

v. no director, officer or employee of the corporation is a registrant, an insurer under an insurance policy that covers theft of the vehicle or damage to the vehicle or a person in the business of repairing motor vehicles, and

vi. the corporation files with the registrar in accordance with subsection (5),

A. a statement outlining the consideration, if any, that it has received from registrants and listing the corporation’s members, directors, officers and employees, and

B. an affidavit attesting to the information contained in the statement mentioned in sub-subparagraph A.

17. The board of trustees for the Fund, the Trustee of the Fund appointed under section 70 or a person that acts on behalf of the board of trustees for the Fund.

18. A person who trades in a motor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating as defined in subsection (6) of more than 21 tonnes.

19. A person who trades in a motor vehicle that is a bus or commercial motor vehicle, as those terms are defined in the Highway Traffic Act, except if the person trades the vehicle to an individual described in section 5 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

20. An insurer, as defined in the Insurance Act, who,

i. receives a used motor vehicle after making payment under an insurance policy as a result of the vehicle having been stolen or wrecked, if,

A. the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has classified the vehicle as irreparable or salvage under section 199.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, or

B. the vehicle is registered in the name of the insurer, and

ii. sells the vehicle to or through a registered motor vehicle dealer.

21. Subject to subsection (7), a person who trades in motor vehicles that the person or a person associated with the person, as described in subsection 1 (2) of the Act, manufactures or that the person distributes as the authorized distributor of motor vehicles manufactured by another person according to a declaration that the person files with the registrar under subsection (9) stating that the person is an authorized distributor of that manufacturer.

22. A person who receives a motor vehicle from a purchaser or lessee as all or part of the consideration for supplying a motor vehicle under a trade described in paragraph 21.

2(2) An individual to whom section 5 of the Act applies with respect to a trade described in that section or a person who arranges for and conducts an auction to make such a trade on behalf of one such individual and no other individuals at the same time is exempt from the Act and the regulations in connection with that trade.

2(3) The conditions mentioned in paragraph 1 of subsection (1) are the following:

1. The person arranging for and conducting the auction and the person’s employees and agents do not have a property interest in any of the motor vehicles being sold.

2. The person arranging for and conducting the auction does not allow a person to sell a motor vehicle at the auction unless the person selling the vehicle is a registered motor vehicle dealer, is exempt from registration or is the Crown.

3. The person arranging for and conducting the auction uses best efforts to ensure that, before a motor vehicle is sold at the auction, the person selling the vehicle appears, on a reasonable basis, to have complied with section 5 of Ontario Regulation 332/08 (Code of Ethics and Operation of Committees) made under the Act, whether or not that regulation applies to the person selling the vehicle.

4. If the auction is conducted so that bidders are physically present, there is a restricted area for bidding and only the following are allowed in the bidding area and only if they wear visible photo identification:

i. Registrants.

ii. The registrar, deputy registrars, the director, deputy directors, investigators appointed under subsection 18 (1) of the Act and persons designated by the registrar under subsection 15 (1) of the Act.

iii. The following persons if they attend for a purpose other than to acquire an interest in a motor vehicle:

A. Law enforcement officers.

B. Employees or agents of the person arranging for and conducting the auction if they are acting for the purpose of the auction.

C. Directors and officers of the person arranging for and conducting the auction if the person is not an individual.

D. Persons in the company of the person arranging for and conducting the auction or in the company of a director or officer of that person.

E. Employees or agents of a seller of a vehicle at the auction who attend the auction for the purpose of the sale of the vehicle by the seller.

5. If the auction is conducted so that bidders have access to the auction through electronic means, the electronic access is provided through a secure means that ensures that only registrants have the electronic access.

6. At the request of the registrar, the person arranging for and conducting the auction provides the registrar with information about any trade conducted in the auction and with access to the person’s records relating to,

i. the persons allowed in the bidding area, and

ii. the persons who are allowed to bid in the auction through electronic means.

7. The motor vehicles sold at the auction are sold only to registered motor vehicle dealers or to persons who, at the time of the sale, are located in another jurisdiction and registered in that jurisdiction as persons with equivalent status to registered motor vehicle dealers.

2(4) The visible photo identification mentioned in paragraph 4 of subsection (3) for a person allowed in the bidding area under that subsection shall also identify whether the person is described in sub-subparagraph 4 iii D or E of that subsection, as opposed to the rest of paragraph 4 of that subsection.

2(5) A not-for-profit corporation that is required to file material described in subparagraph 16 vi of subsection (1) with the registrar shall file the material,

(a) no later than 180 days after the day this Regulation comes into force, in order to be exempt under paragraph 16 of that subsection for the first year after the day this Regulation comes into force; and

(b) no later than each anniversary of the day that this Regulation comes into force, in order to be exempt under paragraph 16 of that subsection for the year immediately after each such anniversary.

2(6) In paragraph 18 of subsection (1),

“gross vehicle weight rating” means, in respect of a motor vehicle, the total of the gross weight and the maximum permitted load of the following, as specified by the manufacturer of the vehicle:

1. The vehicle.

2. In the case of a motor vehicle designed to pull a trailer, the vehicle with the trailer.

2(7) The person described in paragraph 21 of subsection (1) may sell or lease a motor vehicle to a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 only through a motor vehicle dealer registered as a general dealer in the subclass of new and used motor vehicles.

2(8) A person described in paragraph 21 of subsection (1) who sells or leases a motor vehicle in contravention of subsection (7) is not exempt from the Act and the regulations in connection with that sale or lease.

2(9) A person who is required to file a declaration described in paragraph 21 of subsection (1) with the registrar in order to be exempt under that paragraph shall file the declaration,

(a) no later than 180 days after the day this Regulation comes into force, if the person is trading as described in that paragraph immediately before the day this Regulation comes into force; and

(b) before trading as described in that paragraph, if the person is not so trading immediately before the day this Regulation comes into force.

42In addition, under s. 2.1(1) of the General Regulation (Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002), O. Reg. 333/08, a list of specific trades between or through a registrant and any of the following persons or entities that are set out that are exempt from the Act and the regulations [emphasis is mine below]:

Exemption of certain trades from Act

2.1(1) A trade in a motor vehicle between or through a registrant and any of the following persons or entities is exempt from the Act and the regulations, except for sections 52 and 53 of this Regulation, if the purpose of the trade is to provide financing for the purchase or lease of the vehicle from the registrant by a third party:

1. A bank, or an authorized foreign bank, within the meaning of section 2 of the Bank Act (Canada).

2. A subsidiary or an affiliate, within the meaning of section 5 or 6 respectively of the Bank Act (Canada), of a bank described in paragraph 1.

3. A corporation registered under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

4. A credit union, as defined in the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 2020.

5. A subsidiary of a credit union established or acquired in accordance with the Credit Union and Caisses Populaires Act, 2020 or an affiliate of a credit union within the meaning of that Act.

(2) A trade between the person or entity that provides the financing described in subsection (1) and the third party mentioned in that subsection is exempt from the Act and the regulations if the purpose of the trade relates to the financing.

(3) A trade by a person or entity described in any of the paragraphs 1 to 4 to subsection (1) is exempt from the Act and the regulations if the purpose of the trade is to facilitate or complete a financing transaction, howsoever the transaction is structured, whether as a bulk purchase, a securitization of assets or otherwise.

(4) A trade between a motor vehicle dealer registered as a lease finance dealer or as a fleet lessor or both and any other person or entity is exempt from the Act and the regulations, except for clause 53 (1) (k) of this Regulation, if,

(a) the purpose of the trade is to facilitate or complete a financing transaction involving the registrant, howsoever the transaction is structured, whether as a bulk purchase, a securitization of assets or otherwise; or

(b) the trade is made in connection with a financing transaction described in clause (a) and for no other purpose.

43Moreover, under s. 79(1)(c) of the General Regulation (Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002), O. Reg. 333/08, a customer of a “registered” motor vehicle dealer is entitled to compensation from the Fund in respect of a claim for a pecuniary loss only if, at the time of the trade, the dealer was a registrant [emphasis is mine below]:

Entitlement to compensation

79(1) A customer of a registered motor vehicle dealer is entitled to compensation from the Fund in respect of a claim for a pecuniary loss if,

(a) the claim arose from a trade in a motor vehicle between the customer and the dealer;

(b) the claim meets the requirements set out in a paragraph of subsection (3);

(c) at the time of the trade, the dealer was a registrant;

(d) the customer was acting in the trade as a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002; and

(e) the customer has given the dealer, in accordance with section 37 of the Act, a written notice of demand for payment of the claim and the dealer has refused to pay the claim or is unable to do so.

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A

44In respect to the charges laid under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, the following definitions contained in s. 1 apply to the charges related to the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation” regarding the trade of a motor vehicle [emphasis is mine below]:

Interpretation

1. In this Act,

“consumer” means an individual acting for personal, family or household purposes and does not include a person who is acting for business purposes;

“consumer transaction” means any act or instance of conducting business or other dealings with a consumer, including a consumer agreement;

“goods” means any type of property;

"representation” means a representation, claim, statement, offer, request or proposal that is or purports to be,

(a) made respecting or with a view to the supplying of goods or services to consumers, or

(b) made for the purpose of receiving payment for goods or services supplied or purporting to be supplied to consumers;

45Moreover, s. 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 states that this Act applies to all consumer transactions, except for those transactions listed in ss. 2(2) or 2(3), if either the consumer in the transaction or the person who is engaged in the transaction with that particular consumer is located in Ontario when the transaction takes place [emphasis is mine below]:

Application

2(1) Subject to this section, this Act applies in respect of all consumer transactions if the consumer or the person engaging in the transaction with the consumer is located in Ontario when the transaction takes place.

Exceptions

(2) This Act does not apply in respect of,

(a) consumer transactions regulated under the Securities Act;

(b) financial services related to investment products or income securities;

(c) financial products or services regulated under the Insurance Act, the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1994, the Loan and Trust Corporations Act or the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006;

(d) consumer transactions regulated under the Commodity Futures Act;

(e) prescribed professional services that are regulated under a statute of Ontario;

(f) consumer transactions for the purchase, sale or lease of real property, except transactions with respect to time share agreements as defined in section 20; and

(g) consumer transactions regulated under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

Same

(3) This Act does not apply to the supply of a public utility or to any charge for the transmission, distribution or storage of gas as defined in the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 if such charge has been approved by the Ontario Energy Board.

Anti-avoidance

3. In determining whether this Act applies to an entity or transaction, a court or other tribunal shall consider the real substance of the entity or transaction and in so doing may disregard the outward form.

Consumer agreements

4. A consumer agreement that meets the criteria of more than one type of agreement to which this Act applies shall comply with the provisions of this Act and of the regulations that apply to each type of agreement for which it meets the criteria, except where the application of the provisions is excluded by the regulations.

46Examples of “unfair practices” are set out in ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of Part III of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and engaging in an unfair practice with a consumer in Ontario is an offence under s. 116(1)(b)(ii) of that Act [emphasis is mine below]:

UNFAIR PRACTICES

False, misleading or deceptive representation

14(1) It is an unfair practice for a person to make a false, misleading or deceptive representation.

Examples of false, misleading or deceptive representations

(2) Without limiting the generality of what constitutes a false, misleading or deceptive representation, the following are included as false, misleading or deceptive representations:

1. A representation that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, ingredients, benefits or qualities they do not have.

2. A representation that the person who is to supply the goods or services has sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection the person does not have.

3. A representation that the goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model, if they are not.

4. A representation that the goods are new, or unused, if they are not or are reconditioned or reclaimed, but the reasonable use of goods to enable the person to service, prepare, test and deliver the goods does not result in the goods being deemed to be used for the purposes of this paragraph.

5. A representation that the goods have been used to an extent that is materially different from the fact.

6. A representation that the goods or services are available for a reason that does not exist.

7. A representation that the goods or services have been supplied in accordance with a previous representation, if they have not.

8. A representation that the goods or services or any part of them are available or can be delivered or performed when the person making the representation knows or ought to know they are not available or cannot be delivered or performed.

9. A representation that the goods or services or any part of them will be available or can be delivered or performed by a specified time when the person making the representation knows or ought to know they will not be available or cannot be delivered or performed by the specified time.

10. A representation that a service, part, replacement or repair is needed or advisable, if it is not.

11. A representation that a specific price advantage exists, if it does not.

12. A representation that misrepresents the authority of a salesperson, representative, employee or agent to negotiate the final terms of the agreement.

13. A representation that the transaction involves or does not involve rights, remedies or obligations if the representation is false, misleading or deceptive.

14. A representation using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact or failing to state a material fact if such use or failure deceives or tends to deceive.

15. A representation that misrepresents the purpose or intent of any solicitation of or any communication with a consumer.

16. A representation that misrepresents the purpose of any charge or proposed charge.

17. A representation that misrepresents or exaggerates the benefits that are likely to flow to a consumer if the consumer helps a person obtain new or potential customers.

Unfair practices prohibited

17(1) No person shall engage in an unfair practice.

47Furthermore, if one of the three defendants is convicted of committing an unfair practice, then under s. 116(1)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, he or she would be guilty of an offence, and then under s. 116(5), the convicted defendant is liable, as an individual, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both. Also, pursuant to s. 117, if one of the three defendants is convicted of an offence under this Act, the court making the conviction may, in addition to any other penalty, order the person convicted to pay compensation or make restitution [emphasis is mine below]:

Offences

116(1) A person is guilty of an offence if the person,

(a) fails to comply with any order, direction or other requirement under this Act; or

(b) contravenes or fails to comply with,

(i) in respect of Part II, Consumer Rights and Warranties, subsection 10 (1), section 12, subsections 13 (2) and (7) and subsections 13.1 (1) and (2),

(ii) in respect of Part III, Unfair Practices, subsection 17 (1),

(iii) in respect of Part IV, Rights and Obligations Respecting Specific Consumer Agreements, subsection 30 (2), clauses 33 (a) and (b), subsections 34 (1) and (2), 36 (1), 43.1 (1) and 47.1 (1), (5) and (6),

Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subclause 116 (1) (b) (iii) of the Act is amended by striking out “(5) and (6)” at the end. (See: 2017, c. 5, Sched. 2, s. 19 (2))

(iv) in respect of Part V, Sectors Where Advance Fee Prohibited, section 49, subsection 50 (1) and section 53,

(v) in respect of Part VI, Repairs to Motor Vehicles and Other Goods, subsections 56 (1), 57 (1) and (3), 58 (1) and (2), section 60, subsections 61 (1) and (2) and sections 62 and 64,

(v.1) Repealed: 2021, c. 26, Sched. 3, s. 65 (3),

(vi) in respect of Part VII, Credit Agreements, section 71, subsections 72 (2) and 76 (2), section 77 and subsections 78 (1) and (2), 79 (1), 80 (1), (2), (3) and (5), 81 (1), (3), (5), (6) and (7) and 82 (1) and (2),

(vi.1) in respect of Part VII.1, Agreements for Cashing Government Cheques, section 85.3, subsection 85.4 (1) and section 85.5,

(vii) in respect of Part VIII, Leasing, section 88 and subsection 89 (1),

(viii) in respect of Part IX, Procedures for Consumer Remedies, subsections 96 (1), 98 (2) and 99 (5), and

(ix) in respect of Part XI, General, subsection 105.2 (11). 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 116 (1); 2004, c. 19, s. 7 (43); 2006, c. 34, s. 8 (12); 2014, c. 9, Sched. 1, s. 7 (1, 2); 2017, c. 5, Sched. 2, s. 19 (1, 3); 2021, c. 26, Sched. 3, s. 65 (3).

Same

(2) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of a regulation made under this Act is guilty of an offence.

Corporation

(3) An officer or director of a corporation is guilty of an offence if he or she fails to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from committing an offence mentioned in subsection (1) or (2).

Attempt

(4) Any person who attempts to commit any offence referred to in subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence.

Penalties

(5) An individual who is convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or both, and a corporation that is convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $250,000.

Limitation

(6) No proceeding under this section shall be commenced more than two years after the facts upon which the proceeding is based first came to the knowledge of the Director.

Orders for compensation, restitution

117 If a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, the court making the conviction may, in addition to any other penalty, order the person convicted to pay compensation or make restitution.

(C) The Defendants Have The Burden To Prove That An Authorization, Exception, Exemption Or Qualification Prescribed By Law Operates In Favour Of The Defendants

48Under s. 47(3) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. P.33, the burden of proving that an authorization, exception, exemption or qualification prescribed by law operates in favour of the defendant is on the defendant, and the prosecutor is not required, except by way of rebuttal, to prove that the authorization, exception, exemption or qualification does not operate in favour of the defendant:

Burden of proving exception, etc.

47(3) The burden of proving that an authorization, exception, exemption or qualification prescribed by law operates in favour of the defendant is on the defendant, and the prosecutor is not required, except by way of rebuttal, to prove that the authorization, exception, exemption or qualification does not operate in favour of the defendant, whether or not it is set out in the information.

(D) “Ignorance Of The Law” Is Not A Defence

49Furthermore, under s. 81 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, the governing procedural legislation for regulatory offences in Ontario, it is provided that “ignorance of the law” is not a defence:

Ignorance of the law

81 Ignorance of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for committing the offence.

(E) Classification Of Vehicles As “Irreparable”, “Salvage”, “Rebuilt”, and “None”

50The branding of motor vehicles refers to the process in which the Ministry of Transportation places an identifier in the Ministry’s Vehicle Registration System computer database to classify the condition of a vehicle. The motor vehicle branding process also is used to accurately identify the condition or status of severely damaged vehicles. The motor vehicle’s brand is also included in the vehicle registration file, unless it is flagged as "stolen", are printed on registration permits, vehicle histories, and Used Vehicle Information Packages. The Used Vehicle Information Package includes the motor vehicle brand and their definitions.

51Under s. 1(1) of the Classification Of Vehicles As Irreparable, Salvage And Rebuilt Regulation (Highway Traffic Act), O. Reg. 376/02, the definitions and meanings of specific categories of branding for a motor vehicle in Ontario, include such motor vehicle branding or terms as “irreparable”, “rebuilt”, “salvage”, “salvage value”, and “total loss” [emphasis is mine below]:

Definitions

1(1) In section 199.1 of the Act and in this Regulation,

“irreparable” means, with respect to a vehicle, a vehicle that,

(a) is a total loss and,

(i) has been immersed in liquid to the bottom of its dashboard or higher,

(ii) any major part of its electrical system has been, or appears to have been, immersed in liquid,

(iii) has incurred damage requiring the replacement of,

(A) for a vehicle the occupant compartment of which extends from the front door hinge pillar assemblies to the rear-most cross-member of the vehicle, five or more of the structural assemblies listed in Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Schedule,

(B) for a vehicle the occupant compartment of which extends from the front-most cross-member of the vehicle to the rear-most cross-member of the vehicle, seven or more of the structural assemblies listed in Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Schedule,

(C) for a vehicle other than a vehicle described in sub-subclause (A) or (B), three or more of the structural assemblies listed in Parts 2 and 4 of the Schedule, or

(D) its structural fire wall or bulkhead assembly,

(v) has been stolen and dismantled such that the retail price for new parts of a like kind to replace those parts missing or damaged exceeds the fair labour cost to install or repair those parts, and,

(A) a settlement of an insurance claim has been paid for the vehicle as a total loss, or

(B) the vehicle is owned, leased or the plate portion of its vehicle permit is held by a person who is an insurer within the meaning of clause (b) of the definition of “insurer”, or

(b) is classified by the Registrar as irreparable under subsection 199.1(11) of the Act;

“rebuilt” means, with respect to a vehicle, a vehicle that was classified as salvage by the Registrar under subsection 199.1 (10) or (11) of the Act and for which a structural inspection certificate has subsequently been submitted to comply with subsection 2.1 (1) of Regulation 628 of the Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1990 (Vehicle Permits);

“salvage” means, with respect to a vehicle, a vehicle that,

(a) is a total loss and has incurred damage requiring replacement of one or more of the structural assemblies listed in Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Schedule, but is not irreparable,

(b) is classified by the Registrar as salvage under subsection 199.1 (11) of the Act, or

(c) is a motor vehicle assembled using the body of a motor vehicle with a model year of 1981 or later and the chassis frame assembly of another motor vehicle, both of which were manufactured utilizing a full frame assembly as part of the vehicle’s structure;

“salvage value” means the value of a damaged or stolen and dismantled vehicle that is legitimately recoverable through commercial means of disposal and, if the damaged or stolen and dismantled vehicle is purchased by a person described in paragraph 2 of subsection 4 (1), that value is the price paid by the person for the vehicle;

“total loss” means, with respect to a vehicle, a vehicle that has been damaged by collision, impact, fire or flood, or has been stolen and dismantled, such that the estimated cost of repairing it exceeds the difference between the fair market value of the vehicle immediately before it was damaged or stolen and its salvage value.

(2) For the purposes of the definitions of “irreparable” and “salvage” and sub-subparagraph 2(1)(a) of subsection 4 (1), a structural assembly, structural firewall or bulkhead assembly requires replacement if,

(a) it has been damaged by impact and has been torn, kinked or bent beyond the manufacturer’s repair standards or, if there are no manufacturer’s repair standards, beyond the commonly accepted standards of the auto body collision repair industry; or

(b) it has been damaged by heat beyond the manufacturer’s repair standards or, if there are no manufacturer’s repair standards, beyond the commonly accepted standards of the auto body collision repair industry.

(3) For the purposes of the definition of “irreparable” and sub-subparagraph 2 i B of subsection 4 (1), the following are major parts of the electrical system of a vehicle:

1. A fuse panel or breaker panel.

2. A component that monitors, triggers or controls any component of the vehicle’s occupant restraint systems.

3. An electronic component that transmits or relays power for use in the heating or cooling of the vehicle’s occupant compartment.

4. An electronic component that transmits or relays power for use in the vehicle’s defogging or defrosting systems.

5. An electronic component or module that controls the vehicle’s primary operating systems.

6. A main wiring harness with unsealed connections that is located in the occupant compartment.

7. An electronic module that controls the vehicle’s on board self-diagnostic system, excluding communications, navigational and entertainment systems.

8. An electronic module that controls the vehicle’s braking systems or steering systems.

(4) For the purpose of the definition of “total loss”, the estimated cost of repairing the vehicle must be calculated using reasonable commercial rates for parts, supplies and labour.

52Consequently, by virtue of the Classification Of Vehicles As Irreparable, Salvage And Rebuilt Regulation, damaged motor vehicles must meet the “total loss” definition before branding is considered. The damage motor vehicles must then meet the definition of either “Irreparable” or “Salvage” in order to be branded.

(F) DETERMINING IF A VEHICLE IS A TOTAL LOSS

53To determine if a motor vehicle is a “total loss”, the motor vehicle must be declared as a “total loss” or write-off, as the first condition to be included in the mandatory vehicle branding program. The motor vehicle must then meet the definition of either “Irreparable” or “Salvage” to be branded. Moreover, a “Total Loss” motor vehicle is a vehicle that has been damaged by collision, impact, fire or flood, or has been stolen and dismantled, such that the estimated cost of repairing it exceeds the difference between the fair market value of the vehicle immediately before it was damaged or stolen and its “Salvage Value”. “Salvage Value” means the value of a damaged vehicle that is legitimately recoverable through commercial means of disposal.

54Furthermore, it is up to insurance companies, self-insurers, importers, salvagers, auctioneers or anyone who deals in second hand motor vehicles to determine whether a severely damaged vehicle is "Irreparable" or "Salvage". Individual motor vehicle owners who do not receive a claim settlement through their insurance company for a severely damaged vehicle, or a company with 9 vehicles or less, must have the motor vehicle brand determined by an authorized mechanic in the appropriate Motor Vehicle Inspection Station.

(i) The “IRREPARABLE” motor vehicle brand

55The “IRREPARABLE” motor vehicle brand will apply to a motor vehicle when at least 3 or more of the structural assemblies in the “occupant compartment” require “REPLACEMENT”. The motor vehicle permit will then show the brand as “Irreparable” in the upper left corner, and the vehicle status is identified as “unplated” and “unfit”.

(a) Replacement of: 1. 2. 3. 4.

56The “occupant compartment” of a motor vehicle extends from the front door hinge pillar assemblies to the rear most cross-member of the vehicle and requires five of more structural assemblies listed in parts 2, 3 & 4 of the Schedule and seven or more of the structural assemblies listed in parts 1,2,3 and 4 of the Schedule. For motor vehicles other than the ones described, require three or more assemblies in Parts 2 and 4 of the Schedule. Moreover, if the fire wall assembly or bulkhead assembly requires replacement the motor vehicle is automatically “Irreparable”. And, if the motor vehicle is a full frame vehicle and the full frame assembly requires replacement, it must be included in the calculation as one assembly requiring replacement when determining the vehicle brand in addition to the number of structural assemblies requiring replacement in the occupant compartment.

(ii) The “SALVAGE” motor vehicle brand

57The “SALVAGE” motor vehicle brand applies when one or more of the structural assemblies listed in Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4 (see attached) of the Schedules requires REPLACEMENT. “Salvage” branded motor vehicles may be safely repaired for on-road use. However, the motor vehicle must undergo and pass a structural inspection performed at a licensed Type 6 structural inspection station. A “Safety Standard Certificate” is required before being licensed. If the motor vehicle permit shows the brand “Salvage” in the upper left corner then the vehicle status is identified as “unplated” and “unfit”. And, if the motor vehicle is a full frame vehicle and the full frame assembly requires replacement, it must be included in the calculation as one assembly requiring replacement when determining the vehicle brand in addition to the number of structural assemblies requiring replacement in the occupant compartment.

(iii) The “REBUILT” motor vehicle brand

58The “REBUILT” motor vehicle brand applies to a motor vehicle that had been classified as “Salvage” by the Registrar of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and has been issued a valid “Structural Inspection Certificate”. The motor vehicle permit will show the brand “Rebuilt”, and it will not be “fit” and “plated” until a “Safety Standard Certificate” has been issued for the motor vehicle. A “Rebuilt” branded vehicle with a status of “unfit” can only be operated on a highway if it is in safe condition and has a dealer and service licence plate attached.

(iv) The “NONE” motor vehicle brand

59The ”NONE” motor vehicle brand applies to all motor vehicles, unless they are branded “Salvage”, “Irreparable”, or “Rebuilt”. The motor vehicle permit will then show the brand as “None” for the motor vehicle. A motor vehicle brand of “None” will also be assigned even if the vehicle is damaged and is defined as a total loss, but does not have damage that requires the replacement of structural assemblies.

(v) Salvage Value

60“SALVAGE VALUE” is the value of a damaged, flooded, or stolen and dismantled vehicle that is recoverable through commercial means of disposal. If the vehicle is purchased by an autowrecker, salvager or dealer then that value is the price paid for the motor vehicle.

(vi) WRK/IRREPARABLE STATUS

61A motor vehicle that is in the possession of a wrecker or recycler that has no additional value as a motor vehicle and has been shredded, crushed or baled qualifies for a “WRK” status. A vehicle with the “WRK” status will automatically have the “Irreparable” vehicle brand applied to the vehicle file.

(G) CHANGING THE VEHICLE BRAND FROM “SALVAGE” TO “REBUILT”

62To change the motor vehicle brand from “Salvage” to “Rebuilt”, the motor vehicle must have successfully passed an inspection in accordance with the requirements under the Safety Inspections Regulation (Highway Traffic Act) R.R.O. 1990, O. Reg. 611, and have been issued a “Structural Inspection Certificate” according to s. 7.1 [emphasis is mine below]:

Structural Inspection Certificate

7.1(1) A structural inspection certificate shall only be issued in respect of a salvage motor vehicle but shall not be issued in respect of a salvage motor vehicle unless the vehicle has been inspected in accordance with the inspection requirements and complies with the performance standards set out in Schedule 9.

(2) No structural inspection certificate shall be issued in respect of a motor vehicle if the licensee or mechanic is satisfied that a vehicle permit marked “irreparable” has been issued in respect of the vehicle.

63The owner must then submit the “Structural Inspection Certificate” and vehicle permit to a Ministry of Transportation licensing office. Once accepted and approved, the "Salvage" brand will be changed to "Rebuilt". This process helps ensure that damaged vehicles are repaired to meet minimum prescribed standards before being allowed back on the road. Once the "Rebuilt" brand is placed on the vehicle registration file, a Safety Standards Certificate must be obtained from any Motor Vehicle Inspection Station in order for the vehicle to be declared "fit". Under s. 3 of the Safety Inspections Regulation (Highway Traffic Act), R.R.O. 1990, O. Reg. 611, a “Safety Standards Certificate” is required for registering used vehicles:

Safety Standards Certificate

3. A safety standards certificate shall not be issued in respect of a motor vehicle, other than an historic vehicle or a motorcycle, unless the vehicle has been inspected in accordance with the inspection requirements and complies with the performance standards set out in Schedules 1 and 2.

(H) BRINGING OR IMPORTING VEHICLES TO ONTARIO

64To bring in or to import a motor vehicle to Ontario, the motor vehicle must have successfully passed an inspection in accordance with the requirements in Ontario's Safety Inspections Regulation (Highway Traffic Act) R.R.O. 1990, O. Reg. 611, and a Structural Inspection Certificate pursuant to s. 7.1 must also be obtained for that motor vehicle. The owner of the motor vehicle must then submit the Structural Inspection Certificate and vehicle permit to a Ministry of Transportation licensing office. Once accepted and approved, the "Salvage" brand will be changed to "Rebuilt". This process helps ensure that damaged vehicles are repaired to meet minimum prescribed standards before being allowed back on the road. Once the "Rebuilt" brand is placed on the vehicle registration file, a Safety Standards Certificate must be obtained from any Motor Vehicle Inspection Station in order for the vehicle to be declared "fit". A Safety Standards Certificate is required for registering used vehicles.

65In addition, vehicle brand information from other Canadian or United States jurisdictions when equivalent will be carried forward when these vehicles are registered in Ontario with the exception of the “Rebuilt” brand. Imported vehicles with a “Rebuilt” designation or its equivalent from other Canadian or United States jurisdictions will be registered as “Salvage” in Ontario thus requiring them to undergo a structural inspection to ensure that the vehicle has been properly repaired before being branded as “Rebuilt” in Ontario.

(I) CHANGING A MOTOR VEHICLE’S STATUS FROM “UNFIT” TO “FIT”

66Subsection 2(1) of the Vehicle Permits Regulation (Highway Traffic Act), R.R.O. 1990, O. Reg 628, provides that licence plates shall not be approved for use on a motor vehicle and that evidence of validation shall not be issued for a licence plate unless the motor vehicle’s permit indicates a “fit” status; while s. 2.01(1) provides that a permit indicating a “fit” status shall not be issued for a used motor vehicle unless a safety standards certificate was issued upon an inspection of the vehicle that was completed within the preceding 36 days [emphasis is mine below]:

PERMITS

2(1) Number plates shall not be approved for use on a motor vehicle and evidence of validation shall not be issued for a number plate unless the motor vehicle’s permit indicates a fit status.

(2) Where a safety standards certificate, annual inspection certificate, semi-annual inspection certificate or emissions inspection certificate is required under section 2.0.1, 2.0.2 or 2.1 for issuance of a permit that indicates a fit status and the requirement is not fulfilled, a permit indicating an unfit status may be issued.

(3) The Ministry may place a vehicle’s permit into an unfit status if,

(a) number plates have been removed from a vehicle by a police officer or provincial offences officer pursuant to statutory authority to seize number plates; or

(b) the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has classified the vehicle as irreparable or salvage under section 199.1 of the Act.

(4) Where a permit indicating an unfit status has been issued for a motor vehicle or the Ministry’s records indicate that a vehicle is unfit, a permit with a fit status shall be not issued for the vehicle unless the requirements of section 2.0.1, 2.0.2 or 2.1 for the issuance of a permit indicating a fit status are fulfilled.

2.0.1(1) This section does not apply to motor assisted bicycles or to motor vehicles to which section 2.0.2 or 2.1 applies.

(2) A permit indicating a fit status shall not be issued for a used motor vehicle unless a safety standards certificate was issued upon an inspection of the vehicle that was completed within the preceding 36 days.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply,

(a) where the applicant is the spouse or the estate of the person who is registered in Ontario as the owner of the vehicle or the spouse of the person whose estate is registered in Ontario as the owner of the vehicle;

(b) where the applicant is a motor vehicle dealer who is registered under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, other than a dealer registered as a broker;

(c) where the applicant is a motor vehicle dealer who is exempted from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 and its regulations under paragraph 18, 19 or 21 of subsection 2 (1) of Ontario Regulation 333/08 (General) made under that Act;

(d) to an application for a permit for a motor vehicle that has been operated 6,000 kilometres or less and for which a permit has been issued under section 7 of the Act in the name of a motor vehicle dealer described in clause (b) or (c) and has not been in the name of a person other than such a dealer;

(e) to an application for a permit for a motor vehicle that is registered in another jurisdiction, where the applicant has, within the preceding 12 months, been the holder of a currently validated permit that was issued for the vehicle by the Province of Ontario; or

(f) to an application in respect of a vehicle being transferred by one leasing company to another leasing company and, at the time of the transfer, the vehicle is in the possession of a lessee under a lease agreement.

2.1(1) A motor vehicle classified as salvage under subsection 199.1 (10) or (11) of the Act shall not be reclassified as rebuilt unless a structural inspection certificate was issued after its classification as salvage.

(2) Where a motor vehicle was registered in another jurisdiction with the classification of rebuilt or an equivalent classification, the motor vehicle shall not be classified as rebuilt in Ontario unless a structural inspection certificate was issued after the event that resulted in the need for it to be rebuilt.

(3) A motor vehicle that has been classified or reclassified as rebuilt under subsection (1) or (2) shall not be eligible for the issuance of a vehicle permit indicating a fit status unless,

(a) if the motor vehicle is required by a regulation made under section 87 of the Act to display an annual inspection sticker or a semi-annual inspection sticker,

(i) the sticker was issued upon an inspection of the vehicle that was completed within the preceding 36 days, and

(ii) in the case of a vehicle that operates on diesel fuel, an emissions inspection certificate was issued upon an inspection of the vehicle that was completed within the preceding 12 month; and

(b) if the motor vehicle is not required by a regulation made under section 87 of the Act to display an annual inspection sticker or a semi-annual inspection sticker, a safety standards certificate was issued upon an inspection of the vehicle that was completed within the preceding 36 days.

67Therefore, when a motor vehicle is involved in an accident and the damage to the motor vehicle is significant, the police will record that the motor vehicle is unsafe and “unfit” to drive. However, if the motor vehicle that had been in an accident is repaired and passes a safety inspection, the status of the motor vehicle can be changed from “unfit” back to “fit”, so the motor vehicle can then be legally driven on an Ontario Highway.

(J) USED VEHICLE INFORMATION PACKAGE (UVIP)

68A “Used Vehicle Information Package” contains a description of a motor vehicle and its Ontario history and is provided by the government of Ontario. Since it contains important information about the motor vehicle, the “Used Vehicle Information Package” can also help a buyer of a used motor vehicle make a decision about whether or not to purchase the vehicle. The “Used Vehicle Information Package” will also contain important information such as the last known status of the condition of the vehicle and if the vehicle is registered as “unfit” and needs a “Safety Standards Certificate” to be registered and if the vehicle had been reported as wrecked. And, more importantly, to protect buyers’ rights, sellers of used motor vehicles in Ontario are legally required under s. 11.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, to provide a valid “Used Vehicle Information Package” in respect to that used motor vehicle to a proposed buyer or buyer of that pre-owned vehicle for inspection and shall deliver the package to the purchaser or transferee at the time of sale or transfer of the vehicle. It is also an offence for the seller of a used motor vehicle to not provide the buyer with a “Used Vehicle Information Package” if a used car, van, light truck (empty weight of 2,200 kg or less), self-propelled motor home, motorcycle or light farm vehicle (empty weight of 2,200 kg or less) is being sold. Moreover, the buyer needs the “Used Vehicle Information Package” to register a used motor vehicle that had been purchased from a private seller while OMVIC registered motor vehicle dealerships do not need to provide a “Used Vehicle Information Package”. Additionally, the original and undamaged “Used Vehicle Information Package” is required in order for the owner of the used vehicle to sell the used vehicle and the serial number of the package also must be unaltered and the tear-off stub on page 1 must still be attached. Section 11.1 of the Highway Traffic Act provides the following [emphasis is mine below]:

Used vehicle information package

11.1(1) Every person who sells, offers for sale or transfers a used motor vehicle shall provide a valid used vehicle information package in respect of the vehicle for inspection by proposed purchasers or transferees and shall deliver the package to the purchaser or transferee at the time of sale or transfer of the vehicle.

Issuance of package

(2) The Ministry shall issue a used vehicle information package in respect of any used motor vehicle to any person who applies therefor and pays the prescribed fee.

Permit for vehicle

(3) The purchaser or transferee of the used motor vehicle shall deliver the used vehicle information package mentioned in subsection (1) to the Ministry before obtaining from the Ministry a new permit for the vehicle.

Regulations

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

(a) defining “used motor vehicle” and “used vehicle information package”;

(b) prescribing the period of time during which a used vehicle information package is valid after it is issued;

(c) prescribing and providing for the payment of fees for the issuance of used vehicle information packages;

(d) exempting any class of sellers or transferors from the application of subsection (1) or any class of purchasers or transferees from the application of subsection (3).

Offence

(5) Every person who fails to comply with subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $500 on a first conviction and not less than $200 and not more than $1,000 on each subsequent conviction.

69In addition, s. 2 of the Used Vehicle Information Package Regulation (Highway Traffic Act), O. Reg. 601/93, sets out who are exempted from the legal requirement to provide a “Used Vehicle Information Package” to a buyer of a used motor vehicle. The three defendants in the present case were not exempted from the legal requirement to provide a “Used Vehicle Information Package” to a buyer of one of their used motor vehicles that they had sold:

2. The following classes of sellers or transferors are exempt from providing used vehicle information packages under subsection 11.1 (1) of the Act:

3. An owner of a used motor vehicle who transfers it to a person who transports the goods of other persons for compensation under an agreement for use of the vehicle that provides for the transfer of the vehicle back to the owner on termination of the agreement.

4. A person who transports the goods of other persons for compensation who transfers a used motor vehicle back to the owner of the vehicle on termination of an agreement for use of the vehicle.

5. A person who transfers a used motor vehicle from an estate to any person legally entitled to the vehicle.

6. A corporation that sells or transfers a used motor vehicle forming part of its assets to a shareholder of the corporation.

7. A person who transfers a used motor vehicle for no consideration to a member of his or her family.

8. A spouse or former spouse who transfers to his or her spouse or former spouse a used motor vehicle under a separation agreement or divorce judgment.

6.1 REVOKED: O. Reg. 357/05, s. 1.

7. A person who sells or transfers a used motor vehicle to a hospital, local services board, municipality, school board, university or college.

8. A person who transfers a used motor vehicle to an insurer as defined in the Insurance Act on receiving payment under an insurance policy as a result of the vehicle having been stolen or wrecked.

9. A corporation carrying out multiple transfers of used motor vehicles to another corporation.

10. A motor vehicle dealer who is registered under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, other than a dealer registered as a broker.

10.1 A person who sells or transfers a used motor vehicle to a motor vehicle dealer who is registered under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, other than a dealer registered as a broker.

10.2 A motor vehicle dealer who meets the following requirements:

i. the dealer was registered under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act on December 31, 2009, and

ii. the dealer is exempted from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 and its regulations under paragraph 18, 19 or 21 of subsection 2 (1) of Ontario Regulation 333/08 (General) made under that Act.

10.3 A motor vehicle dealer who meets the following requirements:

i. the dealer was not registered under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act on December 31, 2009,

ii. the dealer is exempted from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 and its regulations under paragraph 18, 19 or 21 of subsection 2 (1) of Ontario Regulation 333/08 (General) made under that Act, and

iii. the dealer satisfies the Ministry of that exemption.

10.4 A person who sells or transfers a used motor vehicle to a motor vehicle dealer referred to in paragraph 10.2 or 10.3.

11. An owner of a used motor vehicle who transfers the vehicle to a holder of a taxicab owner’s licence issued under a municipal by-law pursuant to an agreement for use of the vehicle as a taxicab that provides for the transfer of the vehicle back to the owner on termination of the agreement.

12. A holder of a taxicab owner’s licence issued under a municipal by-law who transfers a used motor vehicle back to the owner of the vehicle on termination of an agreement for use of the vehicle as a taxicab.

13. A person who transfers a used motor vehicle for no consideration to a religious, charitable or benevolent organization as defined in the Income Tax Act (Canada).

14. A person who transfers a used motor vehicle under a security agreement as defined in the Personal Property Security Act.

15. A person who transfers a used motor vehicle into that person’s name pursuant to the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

16. A person who transfers a used motor vehicle to any person pursuant to the rules of a licensed lottery.

17. A person who as trustee transfers a used motor vehicle to a person having a beneficial interest in it.

18. A person who sells or transfers a used motor vehicle for the purposes of wrecking or dismantling it to a holder of a Class C licence issued by the Ministry.

(K) LICENCE PLATES MUST BE REGISTERED TO A MOTOR VEHICLE BEFORE IT CAN BE LEGALLY DRIVEN ON AN ONTARIO HIGHWAY

70By virtue of s. 7(1(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8, it is not legal to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway in Ontario without having a licence plate being registered to that motor vehicle. In addition, all motor vehicles must have a valid permit, license plates, and insurance to operate legally on an Ontario highway, or drivers and owners of those motor vehicles risk fines and potential motor vehicle impoundment. However, if someone needs to drive an unregistered vehicle to get a safety certification, a 10-day special permit can be purchased from ServiceOntario. Moreover, without having proper insurance coverage for the motor vehicle a temporary permit or the registration of licence plates for the motor vehicle cannot be lawfully attained [emphasis is mine below]:

Permit requirements

7(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway unless,

(a) there exists a currently validated permit for the vehicle;

(b) there are displayed on the vehicle, in the prescribed manner,

(i) number plates issued in accordance with the regulations showing the number of the permit issued for the vehicle, or

(ii) number plates described in subsection (7.2) if the vehicle is an historic vehicle and the Ministry has issued a currently validated permit for it; and

(c) if required under the regulations, evidence of the current validation of the permit is affixed to a number plate in the prescribed manner.

6. ANALYSIS

71The defendants have been charged with committing 22 offences of acting as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of 11 motor vehicles when not registered to do so as required under s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. B, in the years 2021, 2022 and 2023, and as such, committed an offence pursuant to s. 32 of that Act. They have also been charged under ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, for committing 18 offences of engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation regarding the trade of those 11 motor vehicles to consumers, and as such, committed an offence pursuant to s. 116(1)(b)(ii) of that Act.

72Both the s. 4(1)(a) offences under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 and the offences under ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 are strict liability offences. As a result, the prosecution is only required for these strict liability offence to prove the actus reus of those 40 offences beyond a reasonable doubt; they are not legally required to prove any mental element to ultimately obtain a conviction for those 40 offences. If the prosecution is able to meet its burden of proof, then the defendants will be convicted of these 40 offences unless the defendants prove on a balance of probabilities that they had acted with due diligence in preventing or avoiding committing those offences, or they prove on a balance of probabilities the defence of a mistake of fact. In other words, if the defendants prove they took all reasonable care in the circumstances to prevent or avoid committing the offences or that the defendants had reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would render the act or omission innocent, then they would be acquitted of those 40 offences: R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299, 40 C.C.C. (2d) 353 (S.C.C.).

73In defending against these 40 charges, the defendants have put forward various arguments for an acquittal. First of all, they contend that they fall within the s. 5 exemption under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, since they submit that they had purchased these motor vehicles for “personal use” during the COVID pandemic for the purpose of using the motor vehicles in question for UBER, SkipTheDishes, or Door Dash. However, when the defendants wanted to have these vehicles registered with UBER they were told that UBER would not let them use those vehicles to transport persons and that those motor vehicles could only be used for food delivery, since the motor vehicles they had purchased had been in a previous accident.

74Also, the defendants contend that their family members did not like the motor vehicles that had been purchased for them, since the motor vehicles could not be test driven at the time they had purchased the motor vehicles from Revive Auto Sales, who for liability reasons had required that the damaged motor vehicles be towed to a repair shop and be repaired before the vehicles could be driven by the defendants. And, when the defendants were finally able to drive the repaired motor vehicles, those family members did not like driving those motor vehicles and had wanted to drive a different vehicle, and so that had been the reason why the defendants had sold those motor vehicles. In addition, the defendants further contend that all the motor vehicles that they had sold had safety certificates.

75In addition, the defendants also argue that they had arrived in Canada during the period of the COVID pandemic and did not know the rules or law in respect to buying and selling motor vehicles in Ontario.

76Moreover, the defendants also contend that the reason that some of the motor vehicles did not have licence plates registered to the motor vehicles in question is because it would take one to two or up to three months to repair the motor vehicles that they had purchased from Revive Auto Sales. Furthermore, the defendants also contend that if they had indeed wanted to make a profit in buying damaged motor vehicles to fix and repair them and then to resell them, then they would have bought the motor vehicles directly from an auction to obtain a cheaper price and would not have purchased the damaged motor vehicles from Revive Auto Sales. In addition, the defendants further contend that they did not make any money on these motor vehicles they had bought and then sold to purchasers, as they themselves had to spend thousands of dollars in repairing them to be road worthy.

77Furthermore, the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, also contends maladroitly that even though he and his family members had drove for “UBER”, he also contends that he did not need to make money buying and selling cars, since he is employed as a financial controller.

(A) USING EVIDENCE FROM ONE COUNT TO PROVE ANOTHER COUNT

78Well, one transaction by the defendants of selling a motor vehicle may be happenstance and inconsequential so that it could be an exemption under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002 as a “personal use” motor vehicle, while two transactions by the defendants of selling a motor vehicle may just happen to be a coincidence and still be considered an exemption under s. 5 as “personal use” motor vehicles, but 11 transactions of selling or attempting to sell a motor vehicle by the defendants in 13 months would surely be a distinctive pattern or modus operandi of trading in motor vehicles that would not exempt all 11 transactions as “personal use" motor vehicles under s. 5.

79And, because the defendants have been charged with committing 40 offences on one information, as a general rule, evidence from one count in an information generally cannot be used to prove another count in that information. Hence, each charge must be treated as a separate, distinct allegation, requiring its own evidence. However, evidence from one count can be applied to multiple counts when it is admissible as “Similar Fact Evidence” or “Similar Act Evidence”, meaning the circumstances of the counts are so similar that it is highly improbable they were committed by different people or that the testimony was manufactured.

80In R. v. Headley, 2018 ONSC 5818 (Ont. S.C.), Barnes J. held, at paras. 6 to 14, that as a general rule, all relevant evidence is admissible unless there is a legal or policy-based reason to exclude it. One such legal reason to exclude evidence, Barnes J. noted, is the evidence of an accused’s similar acts which are presumptively inadmissible because it could lead the trier of fact to reason that since the accused committed the prior discreditable act, he or she has a propensity to commit the alleged acts that constitute the offence under consideration. Moreover, Barnes J. noted that this propensity evidence relates only to the general disposition and character of the accused and in such circumstances the prejudicial effect of admission outweighs any probative value of admission. Barnes J. also reiterated that evidence of similar acts is, however, admissible if the evidence is relevant to prove a purpose other than general disposition or character, such as, to show a plan, scheme, system, design, intention, state of mind, knowledge, motive, or to rebut innocent intent or mistake [emphasis is mine below]:

As a general rule, all relevant evidence is admissible unless there is a legal or policy-based reason to exclude it: Morris v. The Queen, 1983 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190 at p. 201, per Lamer J. (as he then was). On a multi-count indictment, evidence on one count is not admissible as evidence on another count: R. v. Brown, 2007 ONCA 71, 216 C.C.C. (3d) 299 at para. 13; R. v. F., 2006 NSCA 42, 212 C.C.C. (3d) 134 at para. 26.

Evidence of an accused’s similar acts is presumptively inadmissible because it can lead the trier of fact to reason that since the accused committed the prior discreditable act, she has a propensity to commit the alleged acts that constitute the offence under consideration. This propensity evidence relates only to the general disposition and character of the accused. In such circumstances the prejudicial effect of admission outweighs any probative value of admission: Regina v. McNamara (No. 1) (1981), 1981 CanLII 3120 (ON CA), 56 C.C.C. (2d) 193, [1981] O.J. No. 3254 (Ont. C.A.) at p. 285 (leave to appeal refused [1981] 1 S.C.R. xi, 1981 CanLII 3394 (SCC), 56 C.C.C. (2d) 576n).

Thus, evidence of similar acts is presumptively inadmissible unless the evidence is relevant to prove a purpose other than general disposition or character, for example, to show a plan, scheme, system, design, intention, state of mind, knowledge, motive, to rebut innocent intent, mistake: R. v. Downey, [2002] O.J. No. 2228 at para. 315.

The admissibility of evidence is always subject to an analysis of its probative value versus its prejudicial effect. Factors favoring admission include: the degree of similarity of the acts; the temporal connection of the acts to the offence; the number of similar acts; any distinguishing features, and the similarity of the circumstances. Factors favoring the exclusion include: the potential for distracting the trier of fact; the potential of consuming inordinate court time; the extent to which the evidence is prejudicial and whether there is other less prejudicial evidence to prove the same point: R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908 at paras. 82-83.

Stephan Headley is accused of defrauding Deborah Lo and Glenford Jones of thousands of dollars by persuading them to invest in a company called Gametronics and diverting the money for his own purposes.

Mr. Jones and Ms. Lo testified that Mr. Headley, in his capacity as their financial advisor, told them that Gametronics was a good investment. Both Mr. Jones and Ms. Lo said Mr. Headley told them to expect significant monthly returns and told them to make the cheques out to one of his companies. Both testified that there was no contract or other documentation in regards to the investment.

The evidence reveals a distinctive pattern and modus operandi. Both Ms. Lo and Mr. Jones testified that within a few days Mr. Headley told them that he was having legal trouble in regards to the investments and he would be taking legal action to recover the monies lost. Both victims were close to Mr. Headley and are alleged to have relied on him for financial advice.

Prior to advancing funds, Ms. Lo and Mr. Headley met Mr. Minchella and subsequently the CEO of Gametronics to discuss the investments. Mr. Jones had no such meetings prior to advancing the funds.

There is a high degree of similarity in the acts, a close temporal connection to the offence, and a distinctive modus operandi. The differences described are not significant. The factual matrix is straightforward and admission will not distract the trier of fact or extend court time. The evidence is relevant to issues of planning, the scheme, system, design, intention, state of mind, knowledge, and motive and to rebut innocent intent. On balance, the probative effect of admission of these similar acts between counts 3 and 5 outweighs any prejudicial effects.

81Furthermore, in R. v. Baksh, 2022 ONCA 481 (Ont. C.A.), the Court of Appeal for Ontario, at paras. 20 to 28, reiterated that as a general rule, evidence of similar acts of misconduct related to other counts is inadmissible unless where the previous misconduct may be so highly relevant and cogent that its probative value in the search for truth outweighs any potential for misuse. However, in the case before them, the Court of Appeal had held that the threshold issue that had to be decided had been whether the evidence that the trial judge had relied on across the four drug trafficking counts is properly characterized as “similar act evidence”. In their view, the Court of Appeal found that it had not been a case in which the trial judge had been required to conduct a “similar act evidence” inquiry, and further reasoned that even though the trial judge had relied on some of the same evidence across the different counts, the trial judge did not do so for the purpose of embarking on impermissible propensity reasoning. Rather, the Court of Appeal had held that the trial judge had considered that the evidence across the counts had been relevant to identifying the trafficker on all counts. In other words, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not rely on the evidence for the improper purpose of reasoning that, because the accused had been the drug trafficker on one occasion, the accused was more likely to be the drug trafficker on other occasions; rather, the trial judge had relied on the continuity of the evidence across the four drug trafficking counts, which had served to confirm the police officer’s identification of the trafficker as the accused on each occasion. More significantly, the Court of Appeal had also emphasized that evidence can be relevant to more than one count without qualifying as “similar act evidence” [emphasis is mine below]:

As a general rule, evidence of similar acts of misconduct is inadmissible: R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908, at para. 31. This general exclusionary rule applies to evidence of similar acts unrelated to the charges at trial and similar acts related to other counts at trial: R. v. Tsigirlash, 2019 ONCA 650, at para. 23. In Handy, at para. 37, the Supreme Court explained the rationale for this exclusionary rule:

The policy basis for the exclusion is that while in some cases propensity inferred from similar facts may be relevant, it may also capture the attention of the trier of fact to an unwarranted degree. Its potential for prejudice, distraction and time consumption is very great and these disadvantages will almost always outweigh its probative value. It ought, in general, to form no part of the case which the accused is called on to answer. It is excluded notwithstanding the general rule that all relevant evidence is admissible[.]

While evidence of prior misconduct beyond the scope of the charge is generally inadmissible, the court in Handy recognized a “narrow exception” to this rule of exclusion in circumstances where “previous misconduct may be so highly relevant and cogent that its probative value in the search for truth outweighs any potential for misuse”: at para. 41.

Where the Crown seeks to rely on similar act evidence, whether across counts or based on acts that are unrelated to the charges, the Crown is required to bring an application to admit the evidence pursuant to r. 30 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules. On such an application, the Crown bears the onus of demonstrating that the similar act evidence meets the narrow exception for admissibility: Tsigirlash, at paras. 26-27.

These are the general principles that apply to the admissibility of similar act evidence. However, in this case, the threshold issue that arises is whether the evidence the trial judge relied on across the four drug trafficking counts is properly characterized as similar act evidence. In my view, contrary to the arguments made by the appellant, it is not, and this is not a case in which the trial judge was required to conduct a similar act evidence inquiry.

While the trial judge relied on some of the same evidence across the different counts, he did not do so for the purpose of embarking on impermissible propensity reasoning. Rather, he considered evidence across the counts that was relevant to identifying the trafficker on all counts. In other words, he did not rely on the evidence for the purpose of reasoning that, because the appellant was the drug trafficker on one occasion, he was more likely to be the drug trafficker on other occasions. Rather, the trial judge relied on the continuity of the evidence across the four drug trafficking counts, which served to confirm DC Singer’s identification of the trafficker as the appellant on each occasion.

This evidence included:

a. The fact that the same silver Honda Civic, which was associated with the appellant’s family and residence, was used on three occasions during which transactions were planned or executed, including at the time of the appellant’s arrest.

b. The use of the same phone number for each transaction, and the fact that the cellphone found in the silver Honda Civic at the time of the arrest rang instantly when DC Singer called that number.

c. The evidence that the trafficker recognized DC Singer and his car from one transaction to the next.

Not all instances of reliance on evidence across counts amounts to impermissible similar act evidence or evidence that raises a risk of propensity reasoning: see e.g., R. v. Settle, 2021 ABCA 221, at paras. 34-36; R. v. Giesbrecht, 2019 MBCA 35, 373 C.C.C. (3d) 70, at paras. 73-77. Whether the evidence is properly characterized as similar act evidence depends on the use to which the evidence is put: see e.g., R. v. Graham, 2015 ONCA 113, 330 O.A.C. 394, at paras. 29, 33; R. v. deKock, 2009 ABCA 225, 454 A.R. 102, at para. 36. In this case, the trial judge did not rely on the evidence to reason that the appellant was the trafficker because he behaved in the same or similar ways on each occasion. Rather, the trial judge relied on specific pieces of evidence linked to the trafficker – his car, his cellphone and his apparent familiarity with DC Singer – as confirmatory of DC Singer’s identification of the appellant as the trafficker.

It is worth noting that, at the outset of his decision, the trial judge recognized that he was required to consider each count separately and to avoid propensity reasoning:

Finally, on this multi-count information, I must be mindful that each count must be considered separately; that is, the evidence on one count cannot be used to prove another count. Any propensity reasoning is prohibited.

When the trial judge stated that “the evidence on one count cannot be used to prove another count”, he went further than necessary in stating the principle at issue. As reviewed above, evidence can be relevant to more than one count without qualifying as similar act evidence. Nevertheless, this aspect of his decision, and similar statements made throughout his decision, demonstrate that he was alert to the pitfalls of misusing evidence from one count to the other for the purpose of propensity reasoning.

82Moreover, in R. v. Johnson, 2011 ONSC 195, (Ont. S.C.), at paras. 130 to 145, Hill J. held that similar fact evidence is admitted by exception where its probative value exceeds its prejudicial effect and that the test for admission is the same whether the evidence is extrinsic or arises from the proof of other counts in the indictment [emphasis is mine below]:

Count-to-Count Admissibility

In the instance of a multi-count indictment involving different complainants where the prosecution seeks count-to-count admissibility of what is submitted to be similar fact evidence, the parties are frequently content to deal with the admissibility issue not as a pre-trial application but rather at the conclusion of all of the Crown’s evidence: R. v. Last (2010), 2009 SCC 45, 247 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (S.C.C.) at para. 34. In some trials, agreement is reached to argue the admissibility question at the end of the case: see for example, R. v. U.C., 2009 ONCA 367, at para. 19.

Recognizing that “[c]oincidence, as an explanation, has its limitations”, similar fact evidence may be admitted in a criminal trial: R. v. Handy (2002) 2002 SCC 56, 164 C.C.C. (3d) 481 (S.C.C.) at para. 45. That said, such evidence is presumptively inadmissible and is only “exceptionally” admitted where the Crown discharges its burden of establishing the case for admission: Handy, at para. 60; R. v. B.(C.R.), 1990 CanLII 142 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717 at 732. Similar fact evidence is therefore admitted by exception where its probative value exceeds its prejudicial effect and the test for admission is the same whether the evidence is extrinsic or arises from the proof of other counts in the indictment: R. v. Moo, 2009 ONCA 645 at para. 97.

The admissibility of similar fact evidence, and specifically the balance of probative value against prejudicial effect, depends on identification of the purpose or material issue for which the evidence is sought to be admitted – issue identification is an important control. As the proponent of admissibility, the Crown must establish “the specific factual issue which the evidence is probative of the improbability of coincidence”: R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 316 at para. 72.

Mere proof of general disposition or discreditable character at large amounts to moral prejudice only. “The issues in question derive from the facts alleged in the charge and the defences advanced or reasonably anticipated”: Handy, at para. 74. For example, is the evidence proffered to prove the identity of the person who committed the offences, to prove the actus reus, to rebut or refute coincidence or innocent explanation or mistake, etc.? Where properly admissible, the evidence may “show a pattern of similar behaviour that confirm[s] each complainant’s testimony”: R. v. B.(T.) (2009), 2009 ONCA 177, 95 O.R. (3d) 21 (C.A.) at para. 22; R. v. Thomas (2004), 2004 CanLII 33987 (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 401 (C.A.) at para. 43.

The “principal driver of probative value…is the connectedness (or nexus) that is established between the similar fact evidence and the offences charged”: Handy, at para. 76. Can it be said that a sufficiently “high degree of similarity between the acts renders the likelihood of coincidence objectively improbable”? (R. v. Arp, 1998 CanLII 769 (SCC), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339 at para. 43). “[T]he search for similarities is a question of degree”: Handy, at para. 122. The cogency of the evidence, derived from the improbability of coincidence, increases as the fact situation moves further to the specific end of the spectrum – also described as an “observed pattern of propensity operating in a closely defined and circumscribed context”: Handy, at paras. 87, 90, 110. Where the acts do not have the high degree of similarity that would render the likelihood of coincidence objectively improbable, the evidence will be inadmissible: Last, at para. 34; Arp, at para. 43.

To found admissibility, the prosecution cannot hope to rely upon an impermissible general disposition inference (R. v. Perrier, 2004 SCC 56, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 228 at para. 18; U.C., at para. 41), similarities of a “general character” (R. v. Chapman (2006), 204 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 24), “generic” similarities commonly seen in the commission of the alleged crime(s) (R. v. Cresswell [2009] ONCA 95, at para. 8; R. v. R.B. (2003), 2003 CanLII 13682 (ON CA), 68 O.R. (3d) 75 (C.A.) at para. 49, 64, 69 (aff’d 2004 SCC 69, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 503)), or facts at the “vague end of the spectrum”: Handy, at para. 85. However, where the evidence gives rise to an inference of a specific disposition, for example, “a specific disposition to sexually abuse his companion’s two young daughters” (U.C., at para. 41) or “to show the appellant’s specific propensity to engage in sexual misconduct with boys in his care who came to him in a vulnerable condition” (R. v. B.(R.) (2005), 2005 CanLII 30693 (ON CA), 77 O.R. 171 (C.A.) at para. 11), the evidence may support a legitimate chain of reasoning and a “persuasive degree of connection” justifying a similar fact ruling in favour of the prosecution: R. v. L.T. (2005), 2005 CanLII 792 (ON CA), 196 O.A.C. 394 (C.A.) at para. 16.

Evaluation of the degree of similarity of the acts may be assisted by consideration of a number of factors including:

(1) proximity in time of the similar acts

(2) extent to which the other acts are similar in detail to the charged conduct

(3) number of occurrences of the similar acts

(4) circumstances surrounding or relating to the similar acts

(5) any distinctive feature(s) unifying the incidents

(6) intervening events

(7) any other factor which would tend to support or rebut the underlying unity of the similar acts.

(Handy, at para. 82)

Similarity assessment requires attention to the existence of material dissimilarities between the transactions: Handy, at para. 123. Where the similarities are particularly strong or numerous, attendant dissimilarities may not defeat the legitimacy of the inference sought to be drawn – see, for example, U.C. (two sisters sexually abused – fondling and touching of both but sexual intercourse with only one); Cresswell (single incident of alleged abuse with some complainants and repeated acts with others); B.(R.) (2005) (no anal intercourse with two of the complainants).

It is generally accepted that where the Crown seeks to have the court admit proffered similar fact evidence as relevant to the identity of the person who committed the offences, an elevated degree of similarity is warranted. Where the similarity amounts to a unique trademark of signature the evidence is “automatically” considered to reach the threshold of being “strikingly similar” and therefore highly probative and admissible: Arp, at para. 45. Even if not at the level of signature sameness, “[i]n the same way, a number of significant similarities, taken together, may be such that by their cumulative effect, they warrant admission of the evidence”: Arp, at paras. 45, 50; R. v. McCormack (2009), 2009 ONCA 72, 241 C.C.C (3d) 516 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 51. In general, evidence linking the accused to each alleged similar act should not be part of “the similarity evaluation: Arp, at paras. 49, 56, 80. However, “[t]he line between evidence that relates to the manner in which the offence is committed and evidence that shows the involvement of an accused is not always easy to draw. The rule that requires segregation of the evidence indicative of involvement is a general, but not an absolute rule”: McCormack, at paras. 45, 80.

Account must be taken of the prospective prejudicial effect on the trier(s) of fact should the similar fact evidence be admitted and available for circumstantial inference reasoning. The risk of wrongful conviction is inherent in propensity evidence. Regard must be had to the risk of moral prejudice including the drawing of an inference of guilt from general disposition or discreditable tendencies. As well, reasoning prejudice warrants consideration including distraction of the trier(s), for example, on account of the impact sentiments of revulsion, consumption of time, etc. The risks of prejudice are generally attenuated in a judge-alone trial: B.(T.), at paras. 33, 36; R. v. J.G.B., 2010 BCCA 2 at para. 25; R. v. T.C. (2005), 2005 CanLII 371 (ON CA), 74 O.R. (3d) 100 (C.A.) at para. 63; B.(T.), at paras. 33, 36.

In the final analysis, the balance of probative value against prejudicial effect goes to the very fairness of the trial.

With regard to similar fact evidence, the “existence of collusion rebuts the premise on which admissibility depends” (Handy, at para. 110) as the probity of such evidence arises from the improbability of two or more witnesses independently or coincidentally giving the same evidence: U.C., at para. 40. Where there is some evidence of actual collusion, or at least an air of reality to it, the Crown must satisfy the trier of law as a condition precedent, on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence of similar acts is not tainted with collusion: Handy, at para. 112.

Dictionary definitions of collusion raise notions of secret agreement, plotting or conniving, or conspiring together for a fraudulent or underhanded purpose.

To the extent that the jurisprudence dealing with collusion speaks of collusion “or some other form of tainting” (U.C., at para. 40; B.(T.), at para. 22), or of other non-collusive conduct (B.(R.) (2005), at para. 5 (no evidence complainants colluded with each other “or even discussed the appellant’s misconduct with each other”)), the court, in deliberating upon the admissibility issue, should be alive to instances of witness contamination of a sufficiently serious nature as to threaten the true existence of coincidence.

The evidence may disclose limited contact between complainants as in R. v. L.G., 2009 ONCA 895 at para. 5. Opportunity for collusion may well be the context “in many cases alleging sexual abuse with multiple complainants” (Handy, at para. 111) and communication among sister complainants is “almost inevitable”: R. v. Shearing (2002), 2002 SCC 58, 165 C.C.C. (3d) 225 (S.C.C.) at para. 43. But “[t]he issue is concoction or collaboration, not contact. If the evidence amounts to no more than opportunity, it will usually be best left to the jury”: Handy, at para. 111.

There may exist the opportunity for collusion, or the potential for collusion, without the evidentiary record disclosing an air of reality to collusion having in fact transpired. Where the trial judge is satisfied that the reliability of the evidence is not jeopardized by collusion or similar tainting, the trier(s) of fact will then decide the ultimate worth of the evidence: Handy, at para. 112; U.C., at para. 19. At trial, of course, it is “not incumbent on the defence to prove collusion”: Handy, at para. 112.

83Ergo, similar act or similar fact evidence may be used for establishing a distinctive pattern of conduct when the evidence reveals a "hallmark" or unique "signature" that connects the counts or it can be used across the counts to show a common plan or identity or for assessing credibility. However, while one complainant's testimony cannot simply be used to prove another complainant's testimony, it can be used to rebut allegations that witnesses (such as multiple victims) colluded or invented their stories, provided that their accounts are truly independent. And, for intertwined events, when multiple counts arise out of the same incident or transaction, the evidence is typically admissible across all related charges.

84To reiterate, the legal burden is on the prosecution to prove each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. In general, each count must be considered separately to determine if the evidence in relation to that count proves the specific defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the evidence from one count cannot be used to infer that one of the three defendants is a person whose general disposition or character is such that he or she is more likely to have committed the offences charged in the other counts. However, the evidence from one count can be used to reach a verdict on another count if the evidence discloses a distinctive pattern of conduct for the three defendants, and that pattern of conduct is so distinctive that it would defy coincidence that two or more people independently would lie or be mistaken in their testimony about the three defendants’ conduct. Where there is such a distinctive pattern, it may assist the court in assessing the complainants’ credibility and is the only purpose for which the court may use this evidence of a distinctive pattern. On the other hand, where there is not a distinctive pattern of conduct by the three defendants, then the court must consider each count separately to determine if the evidence in relation to that count proves the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

85Ergo, since there are 40 counts, 3 defendants from the same family, and 11 different motor vehicles in question, this court can rely on facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt for the multiple charges to prove one charge, but this is not automatic and is subject to the doctrine of ”similar fact evidence”. Hence, facts from multiple charges can be combined to form a mosaic of circumstantial evidence that points to a conclusion of guilt for each individual charge in question. However, this court must still be satisfied that the only reasonable inference from the combined facts is guilt, as it is applied to one individual count.

86Accordiingly, since there is a high degree of similarity in the acts or conduct engaged in by the three defendants in the purchase and selling or attempted selling of those 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 and June 30, 2023, namely there is a close temporal connection in the 40 charges, and a distinctive modus operandi of buying from Revive Auto Sales motor vehicles that had been damaged in an accident, not registering a licence plate for the motor vehicle, not driving the motor vehicle for very many kilometers, and then selling the motor vehicle shortly after purchasing the motor vehicle, the evidence from one count can be used to prove that the defendants did not purchase the 11 motor vehicles as “personal use” motor vehicles for the counts related to the s. 4(1)(a) offences under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. On the other hand, the circumstances that would be evidence that the 11 motor vehicle transactions in question had been purchased by the defendants as “personal use” motor vehicles are that the defendants had registered licence plates to only 3 of the motor vehicles they had purchased from Revive Auto Sales and that only one of the 11 motor vehicles had been owned by one of the three defendants for more than 90 days and that only 1 of the 11 motor vehicles had a change in the odometer reading during the period of the defendants’ ownership of the motor vehicle that had been more than 1500 kilometers. The factual matrix in respect to the selling or attempted selling of the 11 motor vehicles at issue by the defendants is straightforward so their admission has not distracted the trier of fact or caused additional court time to deal with the charges related to the 11 motor vehicles. Furthermore, the evidence from all 40 counts is relevant to issues of planning, the scheme, system, design, intention, state of mind, knowledge, and motive and to rebut innocent intent. More importantly, the evidence adduced at trial in relation to the 11 motor vehicles at issue is not evidence that shows the three defendants to be of bad character or disposition which would trigger a similar fact or similar act evidence inquiry. Accordingly, the similar acts or conduct of the defendants between the 40 counts related to the purchasing of damaged motor vehicles, repairing them quickly, and reselling or attempting to resell the motor vehicles to the public can be utilized to establish a distinctive pattern or modus operandi to prove that another count has been committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

(B) INDICIA OR PATTERN OF CONDUCT TO PROVE THE SELLER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE IS A “CURBSIDER”

87A seller of a motor vehicle in Ontario may be found to be a “curbsider” if some of the following circumstances are proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

(a) The seller lists several motor vehicles for sale simultaneously or in rapid succession.

(b) The seller will buy motor vehicles and instead of registering them under their own name, they post the same motor vehicles for sale with a mark-up.

(c) The motor vehicle being offered for sale is not registered in the seller’s name, or it has only been registered in their name for a very short time.

(d) The seller has not registered a licence plate for the motor vehicle with the Ministry of Transportation.

(e) A “Safety Standards Certificate” has not been obtained for the motor vehicle until the time of the sale of the motor vehicle.

(f) There is a negligible or a small change in the odometer reading during the seller’s registered ownership of the motor vehicle.

(g) The seller refuses or fails to provide an “Used Vehicle Information Package” which is required by law in Ontario or refuses to provide a CarFax report.

(h) The seller discourages or refuses to allow a pre-purchase inspection by the buyer's mechanic.

(i) The motor vehicle is priced below market value for a quick sale and often the motor vehicle is actually a re-built write-off motor vehicle.

(j) The seller refuses to meet at their home or office and suggests a parking lot or a gas station instead or insists on meeting in public spaces like parking lots or on the side of the road.

(k) The seller uses common excuses for why they are selling the motor vehcile such as, "I'm selling it for my Aunt/brother/friend", "I'm moving out of the country", or "I'm getting a company car".

(l) The motor vehicle is not registered in the seller's name or the seller cannot provide government-issued identification that matches the ownership permit.

(m) The seller of the motor vehicle is reluctant to provide a name, address, or a “Bill of Sale” that includes their personal information or tries to avoid giving a receipt that includes their name and address.

(n) The seller claims to be selling the motor vehicle for a friend, relative, or estate, which is a common tactic to avoid accountability.

(o) The motor vehicle has only been registered in the seller's name for a very short period.

(p) The seller has several motor vehicles for sale, often advertised simultaneously on websites like Facebook Marketplace or Kijiji.

(q) The seller promises a great motor vehicle at a low price that is designed to move it quickly before the buyer uncovers hidden issues.

(r) The seller insists on a cash-only transaction to avoid creating a paper trail.

(s) The seller misrepresents the state of the motor vehicle they are selling by not disclosing the motor vehicle’s history or they have falsify the odometer reading, so they can resell the motor vehicle quickly.

(C) INDICIA THAT SHOWS THE TRADE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT HAD BEEN FOR “PERSONAL USE”, AS AN EXEMPTION UNDER S. 5 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS ACT, 2002

88Section 5 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 provides for an exemption to the registration requirements under s. 4 for an individual who trades in a motor vehicle on his or her own account or on the account of a member of the individual’s family, if the motor vehicle is used primarily for the personal use of the individual or a member of his or her family:

Exemption

5. An individual who trades in a motor vehicle on his or her own account or on the account of a member of the individual’s family is exempt from the registration requirements under section 4, if the motor vehicle is used primarily for the personal use of the individual or a member of his or her family.

89“Trade” is defined under s. 1(1) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 and includes the buying, selling, leasing, advertising or exchanging an interest in a motor vehicle or negotiating or inducing or attempting to induce the buying, selling, leasing or exchanging of an interest in a motor vehicle:

“trade” includes buying, selling, leasing, advertising or exchanging an interest in a motor vehicle or negotiating or inducing or attempting to induce the buying, selling, leasing or exchanging of an interest in a motor vehicle, and “trade” when used as a noun has a corresponding meaning; (“faire le commerce”, “opération”, “commerce”)

90Ergo, since the defendants as the registered owners had sold or attempted to induce the buying of the 11 motor vehicles at issue in Ontario, then the defendants and the 11 motor vehicles fall under the purview of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

91Indicia of whether a particular motor vehicle that had been purchased by the defendants is not being used primarily for the “personal use” of that individual defendant or a member of his or her family has been adduced by the prosecution and includes the following evidence, which support a reasonable inference that the three defendants as a family had been involved in selling or attempting to sell 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023, as unregistered motor vehicle dealers in Ontario, contrary to s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002:

(a) the defendants had advertised 2 motor vehicles for sale at the same time in Facebook marketplace (see Exhibit #14), which is evidence that supports an inference that the defendants were buying, repairing and selling numerous motor vehicles in 2022 and 2023 as a business endeavour and not for personal use;

(b) the defendants had also informed buyer, Sally Rashdan, on August 18, 2022, that they were selling at the same time two motor vehicles consisting of a Dodge Durango and the Nissan Rogue motor vehicle that was consequently purchased by Sally Rashdan, which is evidence that supports an inference that the defendants were buying, repairing and selling numerous motor vehicles in 2022 and 2023 as a business endeavour and not for personal use;

(c) neither Nabil Abdelsayed, Mina Abd Elsayed, nor Lillian Kostandy had been registered under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, with OMVIC as a motor vehicle dealer or salesperson;

(d) for 10 of the 11 motor vehicles registered to the defendants as owners, the vehicles had only been owned by them from 1 day to 83 days (27 days, 2 days, 43 days, 83 days, 4 days, 13 days, 21 days, 65 days, 5 days, and 1 day), which is evidence that supports an inference that the defendants were buying, repairing and selling numerous motor vehicles in 2022 and 2023 for a short turn around as a business endeavour and not for personal use;

(e) all 11 motor vehicles registered to the defendants at issue had been in an accident, which is evidence that supports an inference that the defendants were buying, repairing and selling numerous motor vehicles in 2022 and 2023 as a business endeavour and not for personal use;

(f) all 11 motor vehicles registered to the defendants at issue had been purchased from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that buys and sells vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged, which is evidence that supports an inference that the defendants were buying, repairing and selling numerous motor vehicles in 2022 and 2023 as a business endeavour and not for personal use;

(g) for 8 of the 11 motor vehicles registered to the defendants at issue, the defendants did not register a licence plate for the vehicle before the vehicle had been sold to a buyer, which means that the motor vehicle could not be driven on an Ontario highway during the period of ownership, which is evidence that supports an inference that the defendants were buying, repairing and selling numerous motor vehicles in 2022 and 2023 as a business endeavour and not for personal use;

(h) for 10 of the 11 motor vehicles registered to the defendants as owners, the odometer reading for these vehicles had only negligible or a relatively minor change in the number of kilometers driven during the defendants’ ownership of the vehicle from 0 km to 1462 km (specifically 114 km, 364 km, 133 km, 1462 km, 403 km, 889 km, 44 km, 0 km, 1 km, and 789 km), which is evidence that supports an inference that the defendants were buying, repairing and selling numerous motor vehicles in 2022 and 2023 as a business endeavour and not for personal use;

(i) there is no evidence adduced at trial that any of the 11 motor vehicles registered to the defendants at issue that the vehicles had been actually used by the defendants for Uber, SkipTheDishes, or DoorDash ride-sharing or food delivery services, which supports an inference that the defendants were buying, repairing and selling numerous motor vehicles in 2022 and 2023 as a business endeavour and not for personal use;

92Consequently, for 10 of the 11 motor vehicles the evidence adduced at trials shows that these 10 vehicle were not primarily for the “personal use” of any of the three defendants between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023, because of the low mileage on the vehicles and the short period of ownership of the vehicle. Only the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with VIN #19VDE1F76DE401684, owned by the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, would fall within the "personal use" exemption under s. 5, that is based on the change in the odometer reading of 5250 km during the period of ownership between November 4, 2022 and June 22, 2023 (which is an average of 22.83 km driven per day), and the length of ownership of 230 days (see Exhibit #20), and that the evidence adduced did show that there had been a licence plate registered to the motor vehicle that would have allowed the motor vehicle to be driven on an Ontario highway, which shows that the motor vehicle had been driven for “personal use” by the defendant or his family members during the length of ownership of 230 days before the motor vehicle had been sold on June 22, 2023 (see Exhibit #20).

(D) DOES THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2002 APPLY TO THE ACTION OF THE DEFENDANTS’ SELLING OR ATTEMPTING TO SELL THE 11 MOTOR VEHICLES?

93If either the consumer in the transaction or the person who is engaged in the transaction with that particular consumer is located in Ontario when the transaction takes place, then the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 applies to that transaction. The defendants’ action in selling or attempting to sell 11 motor vehicles to the public in Ontario, therefore, falls within the purview of s. 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, since both the defendants and the purchasers of the motor vehicles reside in Ontario and the transactions in selling and buying the defendants’ motor vehicles or in attempting to sell the 11 motor vehicles had all occurred in Ontario.

(E) HAS THE PROSECUTION PROVEN THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE COMMITTED THE 40 CHARGES BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?

94The defendants had 11 motor vehicles registered in their individual names which are at issue and each count in respect to those 11 motor vehicles will be considered individually on whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether the specific defendant has committed their respective charges. The 11 motor vehicles in question are the following:

(1) a black-coloured 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CK3CPZGL255952, from March 2, 2023 to May 24, 2023, had been registered to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy (Exhibit #2).

(2) a grey-coloured 2013 Acura TLT motor vehicle VIN #19UUA8F5XDA800161, from June 9, 2022 to July 6, 2022, had been registered to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed (Exhibit #5).

(3) A blue-coloured 2013 Hyundai SLI motor vehicle with VIN #5NPEC4AC9DH788945, from February 13, 2023 to February 15, 2023, had been registered to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed (Exhibit #6).

(4) a black-coloured 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762, from July 6, 2022 to August 18, 2022, had been registered to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed (Exhibit #7).

(5) a blue-coloured 2014 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #KMHEC4A4XEA118513, from February 28, 2023 to May 4, 2023, had been registered to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed (Exhibit #8).

(6) a grey-coloured 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024, from September 30, 2022 to October 5, 2022, had been registered to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed (Exhibit #9).

(7) a grey-coloured 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525, from September 13, 2022 and up to at least June 30, 2023, had been registered to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed (Exhibit #10). The motor vehicle had not been sold as of June 30, 2023.

(8) a red-coloured 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689, from October 6, 2022 to October 7, 2022, had been registered to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy (Exhibit #11).

(9) A blue-coloured 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN ##5NPE24AF3HH462819, from September 19, 2022, to September 23, 2022, had been registered to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy (Exhibit #15).

(10) a black-coloured 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CK3CP2HL267000, from January 11, 2023 to January 24, 2023, had been registered to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy (Exhibit #18).

(11) a black-coloured 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with VIN #19VDE1F76DE401684, from November 4, 2022 to June 22, 2023, had been registered to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed (Exhibit #20).

95The circumstances and evidence surrounding the selling or attempted selling of the 11 motor vehicles will be individually analyzed below to determine whether the prosecution has proven the 40 charges beyond a reasonable doubt for which defendants and for which counts for the respective motor vehicles:

(1) 2016 Nissan Micra with VIN #3N1CK3CPZGL255952 (see Exhibit #1, #2, #3 and #4)

1. How many days did the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, have the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle registered in his name?

83 days (March 2, 2023 to May 24, 2023).

2. From where did the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, purchase the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle?

The defendant, Lillian Kostandy, purchased the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells motor vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged and that the vehicle had been previously registered in Quebec.

3. Did the defendant register a licence plate for the motor vehicle?

The defendant Lillian Kostandy did not register a licence plate for the 2016 Nissan Micra between March 2, 2023 to May 24, 2023 before the vehicle was sold to Dwayne Highton.

4. Did the defendant purchase a motor vehicle that had been in an accident?

The 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle had been in an accident and had been branded as “salvage” and previously registered in the province of Quebec and the estimated cost of repairs were $11,756.71, and that the primary point of impact on the vehicle had been at the rear of the vehicle and that the bumper, tail lights and quarter panel needed to be replaced.

5. Did the defendant purchase a motor vehicle that had been branded “rebuilt”, “salvage” or “unreparable”?

The 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle is presently branded as “rebuilt” as of June 30, 2023.

6. Was the status of the motor vehicle listed as “Inactive” or “unfit” when the defendant was registered as the owner of the motor vehicle?

As of June 30, 2023, in respect to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, the vehicle’s status was listed as “inactive” which means the vehicle had been sold by the defendant or that the vehicle cannot be driven on an Ontario highway until a safety certificate is obtained, a licence plate is registered to the vehicle, or liability insurance has been obtained for the vehicle.

7. Did the defendant place an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to sell the motor vehicle?

There had been an advertisement for the sale of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle that had been placed on Facebook Marketplace and it had been listed for $9300 with “126 K” km and the sellers profile name listed was Mrmr Abdo (see Exhibits #4 and #14). In Exhibit #14, the seller indicated that they resided in Cairo, Egypt.

8. Did the defendant sell the motor vehicle to an individual or to a motor vehicle dealer?

The vehicle was sold to an individual named Dwayne Highton.

9. Did the buyer of the motor vehicle testify at trial?

The buyer, Dwayne Highton, of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle from Lillian Kostandy did not testify at trial.

10. Was there a change in the odometer reading of the motor vehicle during the period when the defendant was the registered owner of the vehicle?

Odometer reading when defendant purchased vehicle: 00125998 KM

Odometer reading when defendant sold vehicle: 00126112 KM

Difference of 114 KM

96For the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CK3CPZGL255952, the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner from March 2, 2023 to May 24, 2023, and as such, had owned the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle for 83 days.

97The charges set out in counts #9, #10, #21, #22, #36, and #37 apply in respect to the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle. Counts #9 and #10 are in relation to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, while counts #21, #22 are in relation to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, and counts #36 and #37 are in relation to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy. For counts #9, #21 and #36, the three defendants have been charged with committing the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. And, for counts #10, #22 and #37, the three defendants have been charged with the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”, contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

98After seeing an advertisement on the Facebook Marketplace about the sale of the 2016 black-coloured Nissan Micra motor vehicle for $9300 (see Exhibit #4), OMVIC Investigator Zambri had contacted the seller of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle about purchasing the vehicle. OMVIC Investigator Zambri then arranged to meet the seller and had met the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed on April 18, 2023, in a parking lot in a strip plaza located at 240 Wanless Drive in Brampton, at approximately 10:21 a.m. In addition, OMVIC Investigator Zambri testified that the seller had said that his name was “Nabil” and had also identified, Nabil Abdelsayed, in the courtroom as the seller he had met on April 18, 2023. Furthermore, OMVIC Investigator Zambri said that Nabil Abdelsayed had also shown Investigator Zambri, who was acting as an undercover buyer, a portion of the permit for the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle that had been registered in the name of Lillian Kostandy, who is the wife of Nabil Abdelsayed. OMVIC Investigator Zambri also took photographs of the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, standing beside the black-coloured Nissan Micra with licence plate number “CXHX400”; the permit of the vehicle in the name of Lillian Kostandy with two addresses that were a Milton, Ontario address and the 20 Lakeland Court, Brampton, Ontario address; and the VIN #3N1CK3CPZGL255952 from windshield area of motor vehicle (see Exhibit #1). And, when OMVIC Investigator Zambri had asked Nabil Abdelsayed about whether the Nissan Micra motor vehicle had been in an accident, Nabil Abdelsayed had advised that the vehicle had previous damage to the bumper and tail light. Furthermore, when OMVIC Investigator Zambri had asked the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, about what had been the value of the damage to the vehicle, OMVIC Investigator Zambri stated that Nabil Abdelsayed did not reply with a value and then stated that the vehicle had been repaired through insurance. In addition, OMVIC Investigator Zambri said that he had observed on the permit shown to him by Nabil Abdelsayed that the vehicle brand for the Nissan Micra motor vehicle had indicated “rebuilt”. OMVIC Investigator Zambri also said he had observed on the permit that it had been designated as “unfit”, which meant to Investigator Zambri that either no licence plate had been registered to it or that there had been no safety inspection done on the vehicle. Investigator Zambri also said he told Nabil Abdelsayed that the licence plate did not match the permit as the permit had indicated that it had been “unplated”. Additionally, the TD Assurance Company appraisal document indicated that the primary point of impact on the vehicle had been at the rear of the vehicle and that the bumper, tail lights and quarter panel needed to be replaced (see Exhibit #3). OMVIC Investigator Zambri also testified that Nabil Abdelsayed had said to Investigator Zambri that they had owned the motor vehicle for a year and were looking to buy a bigger car with 7 seats. Furthermore, the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had failed to inform OMVIC Investigator Zambri that the vehicle had been previously registered in the Province of Quebec. After OMVIC Investigator Zambri told Nabil Abdelsayed that he would think about it and Investigator Zambri had left the parking lot, the Nissan Micra motor vehicle was eventually sold by the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, to a buyer, named Dwayne Highton on May 24, 2023.

99Furthermore, as the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, had been the registered owner of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle from March 2, 2023 to May 24, 2023, and even though she had not been present when OMVIC Investigator Zambri had met with Nabil Abdelsayed on April 18, 2023, for the possible sale of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle, the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, is ultimately responsible for wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that vehicle, except for any misrepresentations made by the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, in respect to the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation” on April 18, 2023 to OMVIC Investigator Zambri, who had been acting in an undercover capacity. Hence, since the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had been the one who had made misrepresentations about the trade of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle to OMVIC Investigator Zambri in his undercover capacity, then the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Nabil Abdelsayed has committed the offence set out in count #10 of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation” in respect to the trade of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle on April 18, 2023, by omitting to inform Investigator Zambri material facts about the value and extent of the damage to the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle that had been appraised at $11,756.71 of damage to repair after the deductible and that the vehicle had been previously registered in the Province of Quebec and that they had owned the vehicle for about a year when in fact the vehicle had been owned by Nabil Abdelsayed’s wife for only 83 days.

100In addition, the prosecution has also adduced evidence that there had been a misrepresentation made in respect to the sale of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle, which is the misleading or deceptive advertisement that had appeared on Facebook Marketplace (see Exhibit #14) for the sale of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle. The advertisement had indicated that the seller, using the profile name of MrMr Abdo, had falsely resided in Cairo, Egypt, when the actual registered owner of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle, the defendant Lillian Kostandy, had in fact resided in the City of Brampton.

101Furthermore, since the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, is the registered owner of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle from March 2, 2023 to May 24, 2023, before the vehicle was sold to the buyer, Dwayne Highton, on May 24, 2023, Lillian Kostandy is ultimately responsible for wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that vehicle. Accordingly, based on the false advertisement in Facebook Market Place that the seller resided in Cairo, Egypt, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, as the registered owner of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle, had engaged in an unfair practice by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation in the Facebook Market Place advertisement in respect to the sale of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle set out in count #37.

102In addition, since the buyer, Dwayne Highton, of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle did not appear in court to testify about any representations made to the buyer by any of the three defendants, then there is no evidence that the three defendant had made any misrepresentations to the buyer, Dwayne Highton.

103Furthermore, there is also no evidence adduced that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, had been involved in the attempted trade of or in selling the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle to OMVIC Investigator Zambri on April 18, 2023 in his undercover capacity or to the buyer Dwayne Highton on May 24, 2023. As such, the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mina Abd Elsayed had committed the offence set out in counts #21 and #22 respectively of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002 or of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation” contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, in respect to the trade of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle. Accordingly, counts #21 and #22 will be dismissed against Mina Abd Elsayed.

104Moreover, as the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, who has not been registered as motor vehicle dealer with OMVIC, had been trying to sell the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle to OMVIC Investigator Zambri on April 18, 2023, then the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Nabil Abdelsayed has committed the offence set out in count #9 of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so”, as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. Furthermore, in respect to count #37, as the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, had been the registered owner of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle from March 2, 2023 to May 24, 2023, the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, is also ultimately responsible for wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that vehicle to the buyer, Dwayne Highton, on May 24, 2023.

105In addition, there is also evidence to support a reasonable inference that the three defendants as a family had been involved in selling or attempting to sell 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023, as unregistered motor vehicle dealers in Ontario; that the defendants had advertised 2 motor vehicles for sale at the same time in Facebook marketplace (see Exhibit #14); that the defendants also informed buyer Sally Rashdan on August 18, 2022, that they were selling two vehicles at the same time of a Dodge Durango motor vehicle and the Nissan Rogue motor vehicle; that neither the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, nor the other two defendants were registered with OMVIC as a motor vehicle dealer or salesperson; that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle for only 83 days; that the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle had been in an accident; that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, purchased the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells motor vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged; that the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle had been branded as “rebuilt”; that Lillian Kostandy as the registered owner had not registered a licence plate for the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle before the vehicle had been sold to the buyer, Dwayne Highton; that there had been only a difference of 114 km on the odometer reading for the 2016 Nissan Micra during the period when the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner of the vehicle; and that the sale of the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle by the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was not exempted under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, as the evidence does not show that the vehicle had been used for Uber, SkipTheDishes, or DoorDash ride-sharing or food delivery services, nor primarily for the personal use of the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, or a member of her family between March 2, 2023 to May 24, 2023, because of the low mileage of 114 km on the vehicle; that no licence plate had been registered to the vehicle while the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner, which means that Lillian Kostandy could not legally drive the 2016 Nissan Micra motor vehicle on an Ontario highway for “personal use” and because of the relatively short period of ownership of the motor vehicle for only 83 days. Ergo, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, had committed the offence set out in count #36 of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002.

106Accordingly, convictions will be entered for Nabil Abdelsayed for counts #9, #10, and for Lillian Kostandy for counts #36 and #37 while acquittals will be entered for Mina Abd Elsayed for counts ##21 and #22.

(2) 2013 Acura TL with VIN #19UUA8F5XDA800161 (see Exhibit #5)

1. How many days did the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, have the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle registered in his name?

27 days (June 9, 2022 to July 6, 2022)

2. From where did the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, purchase the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle?

The defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, purchased the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged.

3. Did the defendant register a licence plate for the motor vehicle?

The defendant Nabil Abdelsayed registered a licence plate on June 15, 2022 and removed the licence plate on July 6, 2022 when the vehicle was sold to Bilal Qazi.

4. Did the defendant purchase a motor vehicle that had been in an accident?

The 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle had been in an accident.

5. Did the defendant purchase a motor vehicle that had been branded “rebuilt”, “salvage” or “unreparable”?

The 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle had been branded as “rebuilt”.

6. Was the status of the motor vehicle listed as “Inactive” or “unfit” when the defendant was registered as the owner of the motor vehicle?

As of June 30, 2023, in respect to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, the vehicle’s status was listed as “inactive” which means the vehicle means the vehicle had been sold by the defendant or that the vehicle cannot be driven on an Ontario highway until a safety certificate is obtained, a licence plate is registered to the vehicle, or liability insurance has been obtained for the vehicle.

7. Did the defendant place an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to sell the motor vehicle?

There is no evidence that there had been an advertisement for the sale of the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle that had appeared on Facebook Marketplace.

8. Did the defendant sell the motor vehicle to an individual or to motor vehicle dealer?

The vehicle was sold to an individual named Bilal Qazi.

9. Did the buyer of the motor vehicle testify at trial?

The buyer of the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle from Nabil Abdelsayed did not testify at trial.

10. Was there a change in the odometer reading of the motor vehicle during the period when the defendant was the registered owner of the motor vehicle?

Odometer reading when defendant purchased vehicle: 00083663 KM

Odometer reading when defendant sold vehicle: 00084027 KM

Difference of 364 KM

107For the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle with VIN #19UUA8F5XDA800161, the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was the registered owner from June 9, 2022 to July 6, 2022, and as such, had owned the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle for 27 days. The 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle was sold on July 6, 2022, to a buyer named Billal Qazi. Billal Qazi did not appear in court to testify about his purchase of the motor vehicle.

108The charges set out in counts #1, #2, #14, #15, #27, and #28 apply in respect to the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle. Counts #1 and #2 are in relation to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed; while counts #14 and #15 are in relation to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed; and counts #27 and #28 are in relation to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy. For counts #1, #14 and #27, the three defendants have been charged with committing the offence of acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. And, for counts #2, #15 and #28, the three defendants have been charged with the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”, contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

109Since the buyer, Bilal Qazi, of the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle did not appear in court to testify about any representations made to the buyer by any of the three defendants then counts #2, #15 and #28 in relation to the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”, then the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence that the defendants had committed the offences set out in counts of #2, #15 and #28 beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, counts #2, #15 and #28 against the defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed, Mina Abd Elsayed, and Lillian Kostandy, respectively, will be dismissed.

110In addition, as there is no evidence adduced at trial that the defendants, Mina Abd Elsayed and Lillian Kostandy had been involved in selling the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle to the buyer Bilal Qazi, then counts #14 and #27 in relation to the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” will be dismissed respectively for the defendants, Mina Abd Elsayed and Lillian Kostandy.

111However, as the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was the registered owner the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle from June 19, 2022 to July 6, 2022, before the vehicle was sold to the buyer, Bilal Qazi, on July 6, 2022, Nabil Abdelsayed is ultimately responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that vehicle.

112In addition, there is evidence to support a reasonable inference that the three defendants as a family had been involved in selling or attempting to sell 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023, as unregistered motor vehicle dealers in Ontario; that the defendants had advertised 2 motor vehicles for sale at the same time in Facebook marketplace (see Exhibit #14); that the defendants also informed buyer Sally Rashdan on August 18, 2022, that they were selling two motor vehicles at the same time of a Dodge Durango motor vehicle and the Nissan Rogue motor vehicle; that neither the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, nor the other two defendants were registered with OMVIC as a motor vehicle dealer or salesperson; that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was the registered owner of the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle for only 27 days; that the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle had been in an accident; that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had purchased the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells motor vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged; that the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle had been branded as “rebuilt”; that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had registered a licence plate for the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle on June 15, 2022, and then removed the licence plate on July 6, 2022, when the vehicle was sold to Bilal Qazi; that there had been only a change of 364 km on the odometer reading for the 2013 Acura TL during the period when the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was the registered owner of the vehicle; and that the sale of the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle by the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was not exempted under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, as the evidence does not show that the motor vehicle had been primarily for the “personal use” of the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, or a member of his family between June 19, 2022 to July 6, 2022, because of the low mileage put on the motor vehicle during the period of ownership and because of the short period of ownership of the motor vehicle.

113Ergo, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had committed the offence set out in count #1 of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. Accordingly, convictions will be entered for the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, for count #1 while acquittals will be entered for Nabil Abdelsayed for count #2, for the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed for counts #14 and #15, and for the defendant, Lillian Kostandy for counts #27 and #28.

(3) 2013 Hyundai Sonata with VIN #5NPEC4AC9DH788945 (see Exhibit #6)

1. How many days did the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, have the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle registered in his name?

2 days (February 13, 2023 to February 15, 2023)

2. From where did the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, purchase the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle?

The defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, purchased the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged.

3. Did the defendant register a licence plate for the motor vehicle?

The defendant Nabil Abdelsayed did not register a licence plate for the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle when he was registered as the owner of the vehicle and before he sold the vehicle to Olamilekan Ayodele on February 15, 2023.

4. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been in an accident?

The 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle had been in an accident.

5. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been branded “rebuilt”, “salvage” or “unreparable”?

The 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle had been branded as “rebuilt”.

6. Was the status of the motor vehicle listed as “Inactive” or “unfit” when the defendant was registered as the owner of the motor vehicle?

As of June 30, 2023, in respect to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, the vehicle’s status was listed as “inactive” which means the vehicle had been sold by the defendant or that the vehicle cannot be driven on an Ontario highway until a safety certificate is obtained, a licence plate is registered to the vehicle, or liability insurance has been obtained for the vehicle.

7. Did the defendant place an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to sell the motor vehicle?

There is no evidence that there had been an advertisement for the sale of the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle that had appeared on Facebook Marketplace.

8. Did the defendant sell the motor vehicle to an individual or to a motor vehicle dealer?

The vehicle was sold to an individual named Olamilekan Ayodele.

9. Did the buyer of the motor vehicle testify at trial?

The buyer of the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle from Nabil Abdelsayed did not testify at trial.

10. Was there a change in the odometer reading of the motor vehicle during the period when the defendant was the registered owner of the motor vehicle?

Odometer reading when defendant purchased vehicle: 00068352 KM

Odometer reading when defendant sold vehicle: 00068485 KM

Difference of 133 KM

114For the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #5NPEC4AC9DH788945, the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was the registered owner from February 13, 2023 to February 15, 2023, and as such, had owned the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle for 2 days. The 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle was sold on February 15, 2023, to a buyer named Olamilekan Ayodele. Olamilekan Ayodele did not appear in court to testify about his purchase of the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle.

115The charges set out in counts #3, #4, #29, and #30 apply in respect to the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle. Counts #3 and #4 are in relation to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed; while counts #29 and #30 are in relation to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy. For counts #3 and #29, the defendants have been charged with committing the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. And for counts #4 and #30, the defendants have been charged with the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”, contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

116Since the buyer, Olamilekan Ayodele, of the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle did not appear in court to testify about any representations made to the buyer by any of the three defendants then counts #4 and #30 in relation to the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”, then the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence that the defendants had committed the offences set out in counts of #4, and #30 beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, counts #4, and #30 against the defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed and Lillian Kostandy, respectively will be dismissed.

117In addition, as there is no evidence adduced at trial that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy had been involved in selling the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle to the buyer Olamilekan Ayodele, then count #29 in relation to the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” will be dismissed for the defendant, Lillian Kostandy.

118However, in respect to count #3, as the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was the registered owner the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle from February 13, 2023 to February 15, 2023, before the vehicle was sold to the buyer, Olamilekan Ayodele, on February 15, 2023, Nabil Abdelsayed is ultimately responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that motor vehicle.

119In addition, there is evidence to support a reasonable inference that the three defendants as a family had been involved in selling or attempting to sell 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023, as unregistered motor vehicle dealers in Ontario; that the defendants had advertised 2 motor vehicles for sale at the same time in Facebook marketplace (see Exhibit #14); that the defendants also informed buyer Sally Rashdan on August 18, 2022, that they were selling two motor vehicles at the same time of a Dodge Durango motor vehicle and the Nissan Rogue motor vehicle; that neither the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, nor the other two defendants were registered with OMVIC as a motor vehicle dealer or salesperson; that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was the registered owner of the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle for only 2 days; that the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle had been in an accident; that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had purchased the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells motor vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged; that the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle had been branded as “rebuilt”; that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had not registered a licence plate for the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle before the vehicle had been sold to Olamilekan Ayodele; that there had been only a difference of 133 km on the odometer reading for the 2013 Hyundai Sonata during the period when the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was the registered owner of the vehicle; and that the sale of the 2013 Hyundai Sonata by the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was not exempted under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, as the evidence does not show that the vehicle had been used for Uber, SkipTheDishes, or DoorDash ride-sharing or food delivery services, nor primarily for the “personal use” of the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, or a member of his family between January 13, 2023 to January 15, 2023, because of the low mileage put on the motor vehicle during the period of ownership and because of the short period of ownership of the motor vehicle.

120Ergo, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, committed the offence set out in count #3 of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. Accordingly, convictions will be entered for the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, for count #3 while acquittals will be entered for Nabil Abdelsayed for count #4 and for the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, for counts #29 and #30.

(4) 2018 Nissan Rogue with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762 (see Exhibit #7)

1. How many days did the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, have the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle registered in his name?

43 days (July 6, 2022 to August 18, 2022)

2. From where did the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, purchase the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle?

The defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, purchased the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged.

3. Did the defendant register a licence plate for the motor vehicle?

The defendant Nabil Abdelsayed registered a licence plate CWTL365 on July 27, 2022 and removed the licence plate on August 18, 2022 when the vehicle was sold to Sally Rashdan. The licence plate was registered for 22 days.

4. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been in an accident?

The 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle had been in an accident and the cost estimate to repair the vehicle was $23,704.25 and it was also an insurance write-off.

5. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been branded “rebuilt”, “salvage” or “unreparable”?

The 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle had been branded as “none” when the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, purchase the motor vehicle.

6. Was the status of the motor vehicle listed as “Inactive” or “unfit” when the defendant was registered as the owner of the motor vehicle?

As of June 30, 2023, in respect to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, the vehicle’s status was listed as “inactive” which means the vehicle had been sold by the defendant or that the vehicle cannot be driven on an Ontario highway until a safety certificate is obtained, a licence plate is registered to the vehicle, or liability insurance has been obtained for the vehicle.

7. Did the defendant place an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to sell the motor vehicle?

The buyer said that her friend has seen the vehicle being advertised for sale and told the buyer about the vehicle.

8. Did the defendant sell the motor vehicle to an individual or to a motor vehicle dealer?

The vehicle was sold to an individual named Sally Rashdan.

9. Did the buyer of the motor vehicle testify at trial?

The buyer of the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle from Nabil Abdelsayed did testify at trial.

10. Was there a change in the odometer reading of the motor vehicle during the period when the defendant was the registered owner of the motor vehicle?

Odometer reading when defendant purchased vehicle: 00066331 KM

Odometer reading when defendant sold vehicle: 00067793 KM

Difference of 1,462 KM

121For the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762, the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was the registered owner from July 6, 2022 to August 18, 2022, and as such, had owned the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle for 43 days. The 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle was sold on February 15, 2023, to a buyer named Sally Rashdan. Sally Rashdan did appear virtually in court and had testified through Zoom about her purchase of the motor vehicle from the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed. Sally Rashdan also testified that she had talked to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, as well.

122The charges set out in counts #5, #6, #31, and #32 apply in respect to the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle. Counts #5 and #6 are in relation to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed; while counts #31 and #32 are in relation to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy. For counts #5 and #31, the defendants have been charged with committing the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. And for counts #6 and #32, the defendants have been charged with the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”, contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

123The buyer of the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle, Sally Rashdan, did appear in court to testify about the representations made to her by the seller of the motor vehicle and representations by the seller’s wife, who are the two defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed and Lillian Kostandy. In addition, Sally Rashdan said that she had also been introduced to their two sons, but that she had only spoke with the seller of the vehicle and his wife. Sally Rashdan also testified that her friend had found the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle being for sale on Facebook Market Place. In addition, Sally Rashdan said that her friend had contacted the seller and had arranged for her to view the motor vehicle. Moreover, Sally Rashdan said she had gone to the seller’s residence in Brampton and had met the seller and his wife and then took a test drive of the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle along with the seller and his wife. Sally Rashdan also said that she saw two of their sons and their daughter there and only said “hi” to their two sons. In addition, Sally Rashdan said that the seller also had a Dodge Durango motor vehicle for sale. Furthermore, Sally Rashdan had also identified the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, in the courtroom at trial and said that he had been the seller of the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle. She also testified that Nabil Abdelsayed had told her that he had purchased the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle for his wife and that she had only used it to drive their daughter to school, and that they have had the motor vehicle for a year and that his wife did not drive or use the vehicle very much. Furthermore, Sally Rashdan said that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, said he had wanted to sell both motor vehicles so that he could upgrade to a bigger vehicle that had 7 seats. More importantly, Sally Rashdan said that she had told the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, and to his wife that she was going to use the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle to drive her son to school. However, Sally Rashdan said that before she had decided to buy the vehicle from the defendants, neither Nabil Abdelsayed nor his wife had told her that the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle had been in an accident or that it had also been an insurance write-off. Moreover, Sally Rashdan further testified that she would not have bought the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle from the defendants if she had known that the vehicle had been in an accident, as she had specifically informed the defendants that she had intended to use the motor vehicle to drive her 6-year old son to school. Sally Rashdan also said that the seller had asked for $20,000 for the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle, but that she had been able to purchase the motor vehicle in 2022 for $18,000. After taking a test drive of the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle, Sally Rashdan said they had gone back to the seller’s residence where the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, then wrote the Bill of Sale for the amount of $10,000, so that she would pay less tax. Sally Rashdan then said she gave the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed $1,000 as a deposit on August 16, 2022, by e-transfer and then paid the balance of $17,000 on August 17, 2022. As for the “Safety Standards Certificate”, Sally Rashdan said that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, did it and not her.

124In addition, Sally Rashdan said that she did not appreciate what they did because she had driven her kids in the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle and if they had told her the truth about the motor vehicle, she said she would not have bought the motor vehicle. Sally Rashdan also said she found out about that status of the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle from the OMVIC Investigator and did not appreciate that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed and his wife had misled her about the motor vehicle she had purchased from them, as being good to drive, and also that the motor vehicle had not been in fact for Nabil Abdelsayed’s wife to drive. Sally Rashdan also said that she had learned from the OMVIC Investigator that the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle had been classified as “unfit”.

125Ergo, these representations and omissions made by the defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed and Lillian Kostandy to Sally Rashdan, who had bought the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle from the defendants, are misrepresentations, since the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had only purchased the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle on July 6, 2022 and had only owned the vehicle for 43 days and did not own the motor vehicle for a year as the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had told Sally Rashdan. More, importantly the defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed and Lillian Kostandy, had omitted to inform Sally Rashdan that the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle had been in an accident, which would have altered Sally Rashdan’s decision to buy the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle.

126Ergo, the prosecution has adduced evidence that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had made misrepresentations to Sally Rashdan about how longed that they had owned the vehicle and the reason for selling the vehicle, as well as the defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed and Lillian Kostandy, omitting to inform Sally Rashdan that the vehicle had been in an accident and how much the value of the damage had been to the vehicle, and as such, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed and Lillian Kostandy, had respectively committed the offences set out in counts of #6 and #32 in relation to the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation” regarding the trade of a 2018 Nissan Rogue, with VIN #5N1AT2MVXJC762762, contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to s. 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act. Accordingly, the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, is guilty of committing the offence set out in count #6 and the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, is guilty of committing the offence set out in count #32.

127Furthermore, in respect to counts #5 and #31, the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was the registered owner the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle from July 6, 2022 to August 18, 2022, before the vehicle was sold to the buyer, Sally Rashdan, on August 18, 2022. Nabil Abdelsayed as the registered owner of the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle is ultimately responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that motor vehicle.

128In addition, the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was also present and assisted her husband, Nabil Abdelsayed, in selling the vehicle to Sally Rashdan by being present during the test drive of the motor vehicle. Furthermore, there is also evidence to support a reasonable inference that the three defendants as a family had been involved in selling or attempting to sell 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023, as unregistered motor vehicle dealers in Ontario; that the defendants had advertised 2 motor vehicles for sale at the same time in Facebook Market Place (see Exhibit #14) and had also told Sally Rashdan that they had a Dodge Durango motor vehicle and the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle for sale at the same time; that neither the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed nor the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, were registered with OMVIC as a motor vehicle dealer or salesperson; that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was the registered owner of the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle for only 43 days; that the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle had been in an accident; that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had purchased the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells motor vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged; that the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle had been branded as “none”; that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had the licence plate numbered CWTL365 attached to the motor vehicle on July 27, 2022 and then had it removed 22 days later on August 18, 2022, when the vehicle was sold to Sally Rashdan; that there had been only a difference of 1,462 km on the odometer reading for the 2018 Nissan Rogue during the period when the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was the registered owner of the vehicle; and that the sale of the 2018 Nissan Rogue by the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, was not exempted under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, as the evidence does not show that the 2018 Nissan Rogue motor vehicle had been used for Uber, SkipTheDishes, or DoorDash ride-sharing or food delivery services, nor primarily for the “personal use” of Nabil Abdelsayed or a member of his family between July 6, 2022 to August 18, 2022, because of the relatively low mileage of 1,462 km put on the vehicle during Nabil Abdelsayed’s ownership of the vehicle, a licence plate had only been registered for the motor vehicle for 22 days, and the short period of 43 days of ownership of the motor vehicle.

129Ergo, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed and Lillian Kostandy have committed the offence set out in counts #5 and #31, respectively, for committing the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002.

130Accordingly, convictions will be entered for the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, for counts #5 and #6, and for the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, for counts #31 and #32.

(5) 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid with VIN #KMHEC4A4XEA118513 (see Exhibit #8)

1. How many days did the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, have the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle registered in his name?

65 days (February 28, 2023 to May 4, 2023)

2. From where did the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, purchase the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle?

The defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, purchased the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged.

3. Did the defendant register a licence plate for the motor vehicle?

The defendant Mina Abd Elsayed did not register a licence plate for the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle when the vehicle had been owned by Mina Abd Elsayed from February 28, 2023 to May 4, 2023, before the vehicle was sold to Harmandeep Singh.

4. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been in an accident?

The 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle had been in an accident.

5. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been branded “rebuilt”, “salvage” or “unreparable”?

The 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle had been branded as “rebuilt”.

6. Was the status of the motor vehicle listed as “Inactive” or “unfit” when the defendant was registered as the owner of the motor vehicle?

As of June 30, 2023, in respect to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, the vehicle’s status was listed as “inactive” which means the vehicle had been sold by the defendant or that the vehicle cannot be driven on an Ontario highway until a safety certificate is obtained, a licence plate is registered to the vehicle, or liability insurance has been obtained for the vehicle.

7. Did the defendant place an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to sell the motor vehicle?

There had been an advertisement to sell the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor that had been appeared on Facebook Marketplace (see Exhibit #14). The advertisement also indicated the seller’s profile name was MrMr Abdo and that the seller resided in Cairo, Egypt.

8. Did the defendant sell the motor vehicle to an individual or to a motor vehicle dealer?

The vehicle was sold to an individual named Harmandeep Singh.

9. Did the buyer of the motor vehicle testify at trial?

The buyer of the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle from Mina Abd Elsayed did not testify at trial.

10. Was there a change in the odometer reading of the motor vehicle during the period when the defendant was the registered owner of the motor vehicle?

Odometer reading when defendant purchased vehicle: 71307 KM

Odometer reading when defendant sold vehicle: 00071710 KM

Difference of 403 KM

131For the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle with VIN #KMHEC4A4XEA118513, the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner from February 28, 2023 to May 4, 2023, and as such, had owned the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle for 65 days. The 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle was sold on May 4, 2023, to a buyer named Harmandeep Singh. Harmandeep Singh did not appear in court to testify about his purchase of the motor vehicle.

132The charges set out in counts #16 and #17 apply in respect to the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle. Counts #16 and #17 are in relation to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed. For count #16, the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, has been charged with committing the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. And for count #17, the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, has been charged with the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”, contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

133Since the buyer, Harmandeep Singh, of the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle did not appear in court to testify about any representations made to him by any of the three defendants then there would no evidence of any misrepresentations or omissions that had been made by any of the three defendants to the buyer, Harmandeep Singh, in regards to the sale of the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor. However, the prosecution has adduced evidence that there had been a misrepresentation made in respect to the sale of the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle, which is the misleading or deceptive advertisement that had appeared on Facebook Marketplace (see Exhibit #14) for the sale of the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle. The advertisement had falsely indicated that the seller’s profile name was MrMr Abdo and that the seller resided in Cairo, Egypt when in fact, the actual seller, the defendant Mina Abd Elsayed, was residing in the City of Brampton.

134Consequently, since the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, is the registered owner of the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle from February 28, 2023 to May 4, 2023, before the vehicle was sold to the buyer, Harmandeep Singh, on May 4, 2023, the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, is ultimately responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that vehicle. Accordingly, based on the false advertisement that the seller had resided in Cairo, Egypt, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, as the registered owner of the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle, had engaged in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation in Facebook Market Place advertisement (Exhibit #14) in respect to the sale of the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle set out in count #17.

135In addition, in respect to count #16, there is evidence to support a reasonable inference that the three defendants as a family had been involved in selling or attempting to sell 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023 as unregistered motor vehicle dealers in Ontario; that the defendants had advertised 2 motor vehicles for sale at the same time in Facebook Market Place (see Exhibit #14); that the defendants also informed buyer Sally Rashdan on August 18, 2022, that they were selling two vehicles at the same time of a Dodge Durango motor vehicle and the Nissan Rogue motor vehicle; that neither the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, nor the other two defendants were registered with OMVIC as a motor vehicle dealer or salesperson; that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner of the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle for 65 days; that the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle had been in an accident; that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, had purchased the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells motor vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged; that the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle had been branded as “rebuilt”; that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, had not registered a licence plate for the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid motor vehicle before the vehicle had been sold to Harmandeep Singh; that there had been only a difference of 403 km on the odometer reading for the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid during the period when the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner of the vehicle; and that the sale of the 2014 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid by the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was not exempted under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, as the evidence does not show that the motor vehicle had been used for Uber, SkipTheDishes, or DoorDash ride-sharing or food delivery services, nor primarily for the “personal use” of the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, or a member of his family between February 28, 2023 to May 4, 2023, because of the relatively low mileage put on the motor vehicle of 403 km during the period of ownership; that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, did not register a licence plate for the vehicle during the period of ownership between February 28, 2023 to May 4, 2023, which means the vehicle could not be driven on an Ontario highway for “personal use”; and the short period of ownership of the motor vehicle of 65 days.

136Ergo, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mina Abd Elsayed committed the offence set out in count #16 for committing the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002 and for count #17 for offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”, contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002. Accordingly, convictions will be entered for Mina Abd Elsayed for counts #16 and #17.

(6) 2017 Nissan Versa with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024 (see Exhibit #9)

1. How many days did the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, have the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle registered in his name?

5 days (September 30, 2022 to October 5, 2022)

2. From where did the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, purchase the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle?

The defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, purchased the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged.

3. Did the defendant register a licence plate for the motor vehicle?

The defendant Mina Abd Elsayed did not register a licence plate on the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle during September 30, 2022 to October 5, 2022 when the vehicle had been owned by Mina Abd Elsayed.

4. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been in an accident?

The 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle had been in an accident.

5. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been branded “rebuilt”, “salvage” or “unreparable”?

The 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle had been branded as “none”.

6. Was the status of the motor vehicle listed as “Inactive” or “unfit” when the defendant was registered as the owner of the motor vehicle?

As of June 30, 2023, in respect to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, the vehicle’s status was listed as “inactive” which means the vehicle had been sold by the defendant or that the vehicle cannot be driven on an Ontario highway until a safety certificate is obtained, a licence plate is registered to the vehicle, or liability insurance has been obtained for the vehicle.

7. Did the defendant place an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to sell the motor vehicle?

There is no evidence that there had been an advertisement for the sale of the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle that had appeared on Facebook Marketplace.

8. Did the defendant sell the motor vehicle to an individual or to a motor vehicle dealer?

The vehicle was sold to a motor vehicle dealer named Woodbine Chrysler.

9. Did the buyer of the motor vehicle testify at trial?

Jeremy Mark from the sales department of the buyer, Woodbine Chrysler, of the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle from Mina Abd Elsayed did testify at trial.

10. Was there a change in the odometer reading of the motor vehicle during the period when the defendant was the registered owner of the motor vehicle?

Odometer reading when defendant purchased vehicle: 00051111 KM

Odometer reading when defendant sold vehicle: 00052000 KM

Difference of 889 KM

137For the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CE2CP3HL370024, the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner from September 30, 2022 to October 5, 2022, and as such, had owned the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle for 5 days. Mina Abd Elsayed had actually sold the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle to a motor vehicle dealer named Woodbine Chrysler on October, 3, 2022. Moreover, as the registered owner, Mina Abd Elsayed, is ultimately responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that motor vehicle. Jeremy Mark, from the sales department of Woodbine Chrysler, did appear in court to testify about the company’s purchase of the motor vehicle from the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, for $10,900. Furthermore, Jeremy Mark had testified that Woodbine Chrysler had purchased the 2017 Nissan Versa from the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, on October 3, 2022, and recalls that Mina Abd Elsayed’s identification had matched his likeness and then identified the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, sitting in the courtroom. Jeremy Mark also verified that the signature of the salesperson’s name on the Bill of Sale dated October 3, 2022, for the purchase of the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle from the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, had been his own signature (see Exhibit #9).

138The charge set out in count #18 applies in respect to the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle. Count #18 is in relation to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed. For count #18, the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, has been charged with committing the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so”, as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002.

139In respect to count #18, since the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner of the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle from September 30, 2022 to October 5, 2022, when the vehicle was actually sold to the motor vehicle dealer, Woodbine Chrysler, on October 3, 2022, and that there is evidence to support a reasonable inference that the three defendants as a family had been involved in selling or attempting to sell 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023, as unregistered motor vehicle dealers in Ontario; that the defendants had advertised 2 motor vehicles for sale at the same time in Facebook Market Place (see Exhibit #14); that the defendants had also informed buyer Sally Rashdan on August 18, 2022, that they were selling two motor vehicles at the same time of a Dodge Durango motor vehicle and the Nissan Rogue motor vehicle; that neither the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, nor the other two defendants were registered with OMVIC as a motor vehicle dealer or salesperson; that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner of the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle for only 5 days; that the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle had been in an accident; that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, had purchased the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells motor vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged; that the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle had been branded as “none”; that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, had not registered a licence plate for the 2017 Nissan Versa motor vehicle before the vehicle had been sold to Woodbine Chrysler on October 3, 2022; that there had been only a difference of 889 km on the odometer reading for the 2017 Nissan Versa during the period when the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner of the motor vehicle; and that the sale of the 2017 Nissan Versa by the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was not exempted under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, as the evidence does not show that the motor vehicle had been used for Uber, SkipTheDishes, or DoorDash ride-sharing or food delivery services, nor primarily for the “personal use” of the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, or a member of his family between September 30, 2022 to October 5, 2022, because of the relatively low mileage put on the motor vehicle of 889 kms during the period the motor vehicle was owned by the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed; that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, did not register a licence plate for the motor vehicle during the period of ownership between September 30, 2022 to October 5, 2022, which means the vehicle could not be driven on an Ontario highway for “personal use”; and the short period of ownership of the motor vehicle of only 5 days.

140Ergo, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, is guilty of committing the offence set out in count #18 of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so”, as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. Accordingly, a conviction will be entered for the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, for count #18.

(7) 2017 Toyota Corolla with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525 (see Exhibit #10)

1. How many days did the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, have the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle registered in his name?

21 days (September 13, 2022 to October 4, 2022).

2. From where did the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, purchase the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle?

The defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, purchased the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged.

3. Did the defendant register a licence plate for the motor vehicle?

The defendant Mina Abd Elsayed did not register a licence plate for the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle from September 13, 2022 to October 4, 2022.

4. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been in an accident?

The 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle had been in an accident that had occurred on June 9, 2022, with total loss estimated on June 15, 2022 of $13,212.27 and that the damage had been minor to moderate and damage had been to front of vehicle from rear-end collision with another vehicle. The cost estimate to repair the vehicle was $12,212.27 (see Exhibit #10).

5. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been branded “rebuilt”, “salvage” or “unreparable”?

The 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle had been branded as “none” when the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, purchased the motor vehicle.

6. Was the status of the motor vehicle listed as “Inactive” or “unfit” when the defendant was registered as the owner of the motor vehicle?

As of June 30, 2023, in respect to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, the vehicle’s status was listed as “inactive” which means the vehicle had been sold by the defendant or that the vehicle cannot be driven on an Ontario highway until a safety certificate is obtained, a licence plate is registered to the vehicle, or liability insurance has been obtained for the vehicle.

7. Did the defendant place an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to sell the motor vehicle?

There is no evidence that there had been an advertisement for the sale of the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle that had appeared on Facebook Marketplace.

8. Did the defendant sell the motor vehicle to an individual or to a motor vehicle dealer?

The vehicle had been sold to an individual named Tanvir Syed Hussain on October 4, 2022 (see Exhibit #10).

9. Did the buyer of the motor vehicle testify at trial?

The buyer Tanvir Syed Hussain of the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle owned Mina Abd Elsayed did not appear to testify at trial.

10. Was there a change in the odometer reading of the motor vehicle during the period when the defendant was the registered owner of the motor vehicle?

Odometer reading when defendant purchased vehicle: 00095709 KM

Odometer reading when defendant sold vehicle: 00095753 KM

Difference of 44 KM, as the vehicle had not been sold as of June 30, 2023

141For the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle with VIN #2T1BURHE4HC865525, the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner from September 17, 2022 to October 4, 2022, and as such, had owned the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle for 21 days.

142The charges set out in counts #7, #8, #19, #20, #33, and #34 apply in respect to the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle. Counts #7 and #8 are in relation to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed; while counts #19 and #20 are in relation to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed; and counts #33 and #34 are in relation to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy. For counts #7, #19 and #33, the three defendants have been charged with committing the offence of acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. And, for counts #8, #20 and #34, the three defendants have been charged with the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”, contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

143Since the buyer, Tanvir Syed Hussain, of the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle did not appear at trial to testify, there would be no evidence of any representations made to the buyer by any of the three defendants. In addition, there is no evidence adduced at trial that the defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed and Lillian Kostandy, had been involved in trying to sell the 2017 Toyota Corolla to the buyer, Tanvir Syed Hussain. As a consequence, the charges set out in counts #7 and #33 in respect to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, and Lillian Kostandy, for the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so”, as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002 will be dismissed.

144In addition, for counts #8, #20, and #34, in respect to the defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed, Mina Abd Elsayed, and Lillian Kostandy, for the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”, contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 will also be dismissed.

145However, in respect to count #19, since the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle from September 17, 2022 to October 4, 2022, then the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, as the registered owner of the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle is ultimately responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that motor vehicle.

146And, because there is evidence to support a reasonable inference that the three defendants as a family had been involved in selling or attempting to sell 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023 as unregistered motor vehicle dealers in Ontario; that the defendants had advertised 2 motor vehicles for sale at the same time in Facebook Market Place (see Exhibit #14); that the defendants also had informed buyer Sally Rashdan on August 18, 2022, that they were selling two motor vehicles at the same time of a Dodge Durango motor vehicle and the Nissan Rogue motor vehicle; that neither the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, nor the other two defendants were registered with OMVIC as a motor vehicle dealer or salesperson; that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner of the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle for 21 days; that the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle had been in an accident; that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, had purchased the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells motor vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged; that the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle had been branded as “none”; that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, had not registered a licence plate for the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle from September 17, 2022 to October 4, 2022; that there had been a only a change on the odometer reading of 44 km for the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle during the period when the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner of the vehicle; and that the sale of the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle by the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, to the buyer, Tanvir Syed Hussain, on October 4, 2022, was not exempted under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, as the evidence does not show that the motor vehicle had been primarily for the “personal use” of the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, or a member of his family between September 17, 2022 to October 4, 2022 (see Exhibit #10) because there had only been a change in mileage of 44 km put on the vehicle during the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed’s ownership of the motor vehicle, that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, had only owned the 2017 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle for 21 days, and that no licence plate had ever been registered for the motor vehicle during the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed’s ownership of the motor vehicle that would have allowed the motor vehicle to be driven on an Ontario highway.

147Ergo, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, had committed the offence set out in count #19 of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so”, as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. Accordingly, a conviction will be entered for the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, for count #19, while acquittals will be entered for the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, for counts #7 and #8, for the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, for count #20, and for the defendant Lillian Kostandy for counts #33 and #34.

(8) 2016 Hyundai Elantra with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689 (see Exhibit #11)

1. How many days did the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, have the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle registered in her name?

1 day (October 6, 2022 to October 7, 2022)

2. From where did the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, purchase the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle?

The defendant, Lillian Kostandy, purchased the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged.

3. Did the defendant register a licence plate for the motor vehicle?

The defendant Lillian Kostandy did not register a licence plate for the vehicle while she was the registered owner of the vehicle.

4. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been in an accident?

The 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle had been in an accident and had been an insurance write-off.

5. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been branded “rebuilt”, “salvage” or “unreparable”?

The 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle had been branded as “none”.

6. Was the status of the motor vehicle listed as “Inactive” or “unfit” when the defendant was registered as the owner of the motor vehicle?

As of June 30, 2023, in respect to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, the vehicle’s status was listed as “inactive” which means the vehicle had been sold by the defendant or that the vehicle cannot be driven on an Ontario highway until a safety certificate is obtained, a licence plate is registered to the vehicle, or liability insurance has been obtained for the vehicle.

7. Did the defendant place an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to sell the motor vehicle?

There had been no evidence that the defendants had advertised the sale of the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle on Facebook Marketplace or any other website.

8. Did the defendant sell the motor vehicle to an individual or to a motor vehicle dealer?

The vehicle was sold to an individual named Kadeem Scott.

9. Did the buyer of the motor vehicle testify at trial?

The buyer of the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle from Lillian Kostandy did not testify at trial.

10. Was there a change in the odometer reading of the motor vehicle during the period when the defendant was the registered owner of the motor vehicle?

Odometer reading when defendant purchased vehicle: 00075480 KM

Odometer reading when defendant sold vehicle: 00075479 KM

Difference of 0 KM

148For the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle with VIN #5NPDH4AE6GH666689, the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner from October 6, 2022 to October 7, 2022, and as such, had owned the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle for 1 day. Moreover, as the registered owner, Lillian Kostandy is ultimately responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that motor vehicle. The 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle was sold on October 7, 2022, to a buyer named Kadeem Scott. Kadeem Scott did not appear in court to testify about his purchase of that motor vehicle.

149The charges set out in count #35 apply in respect to the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle. Count #35 is in relation to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy. For count #35, the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, has been charged with committing the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002.

150In respect to count #35, as the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle from October 6, 2022 to October 7, 2022, before the vehicle was sold to the buyer, Kadeem Scott, on October 7, 2022, there is evidence to support a reasonable inference that the three defendants as a family had been involved in selling or attempting to sell 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023, as unregistered motor vehicle dealers in Ontario; that the defendants had advertised 2 motor vehicles for sale at the same time in Facebook Market Place (see Exhibit #14); that the defendants had also informed buyer Sally Rashdan on August 18, 2022, that they were selling two motor vehicles at the same time of a Dodge Durango motor vehicle and the Nissan Rogue motor vehicle; that neither the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, nor the other two defendants were registered with OMVIC as a motor vehicle dealer or salesperson; that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner of the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle for only 1 day; that the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle had been in an accident; that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, had purchased the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells motor vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged; that the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle had been branded as “none”; that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, had not registered a licence plate for the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle before the motor vehicle had been sold to Kadeem Scott; that there had been no change in the odometer reading for the 2016 Hyundai Elantra during the period when the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner of the motor vehicle; and that the sale of the 2016 Hyundai Elantra motor vehicle by the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was not exempted under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, as the evidence does not show that the motor vehicle had been used for Uber, SkipTheDishes, or DoorDash ride-sharing or food delivery services, nor primarily for the “personal use” of the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, or a member of her family between October 6, 2022 to October 7, 2022, because of the low mileage put on the motor vehicle, that there had been no licence plate registered to the motor vehicle and the short period of ownership of the motor vehicle for only 1 day.

151Ergo, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, had committed the offence set out in count #35 of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so”, as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. Accordingly, a conviction will be entered for the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, for count #35.

(9) 2017 Hyundai Sonata with VIN #5NPE24AF3HH462819 (see Exhibits #12 and #15)

1. How many days did the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, have the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle registered in her name?

4 days (September 19, 2022 to September 23, 2022)

2. From where did the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, purchase the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle?

The defendant, Lillian Kostandy, purchased the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged.

3. Did the defendant register a licence plate for the motor vehicle?

The defendant Lillian Kostandy registered a licence plate on June 15, 2022 and removed the licence plate on July 6, 2022 when the vehicle was sold to Tarsem Singh and Sukhwant Kaur.

4. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been in an accident?

The 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle had been in an accident.

5. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been branded “rebuilt”, “salvage” or “unreparable”?

The 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle had been branded as “rebuilt”.

6. Was the status of the motor vehicle listed as “Inactive” or “unfit” when the defendant was registered as the owner of the motor vehicle?

As of June 30, 2023, in respect to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, the vehicle’s status was listed as “inactive” which means the vehicle had been sold by the defendant or that the vehicle cannot be driven on an Ontario highway until a safety certificate is obtained, a licence plate is registered to the vehicle, or liability insurance has been obtained for the vehicle.

7. Did the defendant place an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to sell the motor vehicle?

There is no evidence that there had been an advertisement for the sale of the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle that had appeared on Facebook Marketplace.

8. Did the defendant sell the motor vehicle to an individual or to a motor vehicle dealer?

The vehicle was sold to two individuals named Tarsem Singh and Sukhwant Kaur.

9. Did the buyer of the motor vehicle testify at trial?

The buyer of the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle from Lillian Kostandy did not testify at trial.

10. Was there a change in the odometer reading of the motor vehicle during the period when the defendant was the registered owner of the motor vehicle?

Odometer reading when defendant purchased vehicle: 00043992 KM

Odometer reading when defendant sold vehicle: 00043993KM

Difference of 1 KM

152For the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle with VIN #5NPE24AF3HH462819, the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner from September 19, 2022 to September 23, 2022, and as such, had owned the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle for 4 days. The 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle was sold on September, 2022, to a two buyers named Tarsem Singh and Sukhwant Kaur. Neither Tarsem Singh nor Sukhwant Kaur appeared in court to testify about their purchase of the motor vehicle.

153The charges set out in counts #11, #12, #23, #24, #38 and #39 apply in respect to the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle. Counts #11 and #12 are in relation to the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed; while counts #23 and #24 are in relation to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed; and counts #38 and #39 are in relation to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy. For counts #11, #23 and #38, the defendants have been charged with committing the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. And for counts #12, #24 and #39, the defendants have been charged with the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”, contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

154Since neither of the two buyers, Tarsem Singh or Sukhwant Kaur, of the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle had appeared in court to testify about any representations made to the two buyers by any of the three defendants, then the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence that the defendants had committed the offences of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation” set out in counts of #12, #24 and #39 beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, counts #12, #24 and #39 against the defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed, Mina Abd Elsayed, and Lillian Kostandy, respectively, will be dismissed.

155In addition, as there is no evidence adduced at trial that the defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed and Mina Abd Elsayed, had been involved in selling the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle to the two buyers, Tarsem Singh and Sukhwant Kaur, then counts #11 and #23 in relation to the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” will be dismissed for the defendants, Nabil Abdelsayed and Mina Abd Elsayed.

156However, in respect to count #38, as the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle from September 19, 2022 to September 23, 2022, before the vehicle was sold to the two buyers, Tarsem Singh and Sukhwant Kaur, on September 23, 2022. Moreover, since the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, is the registered owner of the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle, she is ultimately responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that motor vehicle.

157In addition, there is also evidence to support a reasonable inference that the three defendants as a family had been involved in selling or attempting to sell 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023, as unregistered motor vehicle dealers in Ontario; that the defendants had advertised 2 motor vehicles for sale at the same time in Facebook Market Place (see Exhibit #14); that the defendants also informed buyer Sally Rashdan on August 18, 2022, that they were selling two motor vehicles at the same time of a Dodge Durango motor vehicle and the Nissan Rogue motor vehicle; that neither the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, nor the other two defendants were registered with OMVIC as a motor vehicle dealer or salesperson; that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner of the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle for only 4 days; that the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle had been in an accident; that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, had purchased the 2013 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells motor vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged; that the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle had been branded as “rebuilt”; that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy had not registered a licence plate for the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle before the vehicle had been sold to the two buyers, Tarsem Singh and Sukhwant Kaur; that there had been only a difference of 1 km on the odometer reading for the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle during the period when the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner of the motor vehicle; and that the sale of the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle by the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was not exempted under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, as the evidence does not show that the motor vehicle had been used for Uber, SkipTheDishes, or DoorDash ride-sharing or food delivery services, nor primarily for the “personal use” of the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, or a member of his family between September 19, 2022 to September 23, 2022, because of the low mileage of 1 km that had been put on the motor vehicle during the defendant’s ownership; because no licence plate had been registered to the motor vehicle while Lillian Kostandy was the registered owner, which means that the 2017 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicle could not be legally driven on an Ontario highway for “personal use”; and because of the short period of ownership of the motor vehicle of only 4 days.

158Ergo, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, had committed the offence set out in count #38 of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so”, as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. Accordingly, a conviction will be entered for the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, for count #38; while acquittals will be entered for the defendant, Nabil Elsayed for counts #11 and #12, for the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, for counts #23 and #24, and for the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, for count #39.

(10) 2017 Nissan Micra with VIN #3N1CK3CP2HL267000 (Exhibits #18 and #19)

1. How many days did the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, have the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle registered in her name?

13 days (January 11, 2023 to January 24, 2023)

2. From where did the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, purchase the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle?

The defendant, Lillian Kostandy, purchased the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged.

3. Did the defendant register a licence plate for the motor vehicle?

The defendant Lillian Kostandy did not register a licence plate for the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle between January 11, 2023 to January 24, 2023 before the vehicle was sold to Parth Rajdev.

4. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been in an accident?

The 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle had been in an accident and “Insurance Write Off” and had been branded “salvage” with a Damage Estimate of $10,841.24.

5. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been branded “rebuilt”, “salvage” or “unreparable”?

The 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle had been branded as “rebuilt” when the defendant, Lillian Kostandy purchased the vehicle.

6. Was the status of the motor vehicle listed as “Inactive” or “unfit” when the defendant was registered as the owner of the motor vehicle?

As of June 30, 2023, in respect to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, the vehicle’s status was listed as “inactive” which means the vehicle had been sold by the defendant or that the vehicle cannot be driven on an Ontario highway until a safety certificate is obtained, a licence plate is registered to the vehicle, or liability insurance has been obtained for the vehicle.

7. Did the defendant place an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to sell the motor vehicle?

There is no evidence that there had been an advertisement for the sale of the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle that had appeared on Facebook Marketplace.

8. Did the defendant sell the motor vehicle to an individual or to a motor vehicle dealer?

The vehicle was sold to an individual named Parth Rajdev.

9. Did the buyer of the motor vehicle testify at trial?

The buyer of the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle from Lillian Kostandy did not testify at trial.

10. Was there a change in the odometer reading of the motor vehicle during the period when the defendant was the registered owner of the motor vehicle?

Odometer reading when defendant purchased vehicle: 00043204 KM

Odometer reading when defendant sold vehicle: 00043993 KM

Difference of 789 KM

159For the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle with VIN #3N1CK3CP2HL267000, the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner from January 11, 2023 to January 24, 2023, and as such, had owned the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle for 13 days. The 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle was sold on January 24, 2023, to a buyer named Parth Rajdev. Parth Rajdev did not appear in court to testify about his purchase of the motor vehicle.

160The charges set out in counts #13 and #40 apply in respect to the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle. Count #13 is in relation to the defendant Nabil Abdelsayed; while count #40 is in relation to the defendant, Lillian Kostandy. For counts #13 and #40, the defendants have been charged with committing the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so”, as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002.

161Since the buyer, Parth Rajdev, of the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle did not appear in court to testify about any representations made to the buyer by any of the three defendants or who had been involved in the sale of the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle to Parth Rajdev, then the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence that the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, has committed the offence set out in count #13 of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so”, as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. Therefore, count #13 for the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, will be dismissed.

162However, in respect to count #40, as the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle from January 11, 2023 to January 24, 2023, before the motor vehicle was sold to the buyer, Parth Rajdev, on January 24, 2023. Furthermore, since Lillian Kostandy is the registered owner of the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle, she is ultimately responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that motor vehicle.

163In addition, there is also evidence to support a reasonable inference that the three defendants as a family had been involved in selling or attempting to sell 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023, as unregistered motor vehicle dealers in Ontario; that the defendants had advertised 2 motor vehicles for sale at the same time in Facebook Market Place (see Exhibit #14); that the defendants also informed buyer Sally Rashdan on August 18, 2022, that they were selling two motor vehicles at the same time of a Dodge Durango motor vehicle and the Nissan Rogue motor vehicle; that neither the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, nor the other two defendants were registered with OMVIC as a motor vehicle dealer or salesperson; that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner of the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle for only 13 days; that the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle had been in an accident; that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, had purchased the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells motor vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged; that the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle had been branded as “rebuilt” when the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, had purchased the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle; that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, had not registered a licence plate for the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle before the motor vehicle had been sold to Parth Rajdev; that there had been only a difference of 789 km on the odometer reading for the 2017 Nissan Micra during the period when the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner of the motor vehicle; and that the sale of the 2017 Nissan Micra by the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was not exempted under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, as the evidence does not show that the motor vehicle had been used for Uber, SkipTheDishes, or DoorDash ride-sharing or food delivery services, nor primarily for the “personal use” of the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, or a member of his family between January 11, 2023 to January 24, 2023, because of the relatively minor change in the odometer reading on the vehicle of 789 km during the period of the defendant’s ownership; because that no licence plate had been registered to the motor vehicle while the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, was the registered owner, which means that the 2017 Nissan Micra motor vehicle could not be legally driven on an Ontario highway for “personal use”; and because of the short period of ownership of the motor vehicle of only 13 days.

164Ergo, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, had committed the offence set out in count #40 of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so”, as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. Accordingly, a conviction will be entered for the defendant, Lillian Kostandy, for count #40; while an acquittal will be entered for the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed for count #13.

(11) 2013 Acura ITL with VIN #19VDE1F76DE401684 (see Exhibit 20)

1. How many days did the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, have the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle registered in his name?

230 days (November 4, 2022 to June 22, 2023)

2. From where did the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, purchase the 2013 Acura TL motor vehicle?

The defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, purchased the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged.

3. Did the defendant register a licence plate for the motor vehicle?

The defendant Mina Abd Elsayed registered a licence plate on CXHX137 attached on November 30, 2022 and removed on June 22, 2023 when the vehicle was sold to Apinash Thangavadivel.

4. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been in an accident?

The 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle had been in an accident.

5. Did the defendant purchase the motor vehicle that had been branded “rebuilt”, “salvage” or “unreparable”?

The 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle had been branded as “rebuilt”.

6. Was the status of the motor vehicle listed as “Inactive” or “unfit” when the defendant was registered as the owner of the motor vehicle?

As of June 30, 2023, in respect to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, the vehicle’s status was listed as “inactive” which means the vehicle had been sold by the defendant or that the vehicle cannot be driven on an Ontario highway until a safety certificate is obtained, a licence plate is registered to the vehicle, or liability insurance has been obtained for the vehicle.

7. Did the defendant place an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to sell the motor vehicle?

There is no evidence that there had been an advertisement for the sale of the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle that had appeared on Facebook Marketplace.

8. Did the defendant sell the motor vehicle to an individual or to a motor vehicle dealer?

The vehicle was sold to an individual named Apinash Thangavadivel.

9. Did the buyer of the motor vehicle testify at trial?

The buyer of the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle from Mina Abd Elsayed did not testify at trial.

10. Was there a change in the odometer reading of the motor vehicle during the period when the defendant was the registered owner of the motor vehicle?

Odometer reading when defendant purchased vehicle: 00083663 KM

Odometer reading when defendant sold vehicle: 00088913 KM.

Difference of 5,250 KM

165For the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with VIN #19VDE1F76DE401684, the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner from November 4, 2022 to June 22, 2023, and as such, had owned the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle for 230 days. Furthermore, as the registered owner, Mina Abd Elsayed is ultimately responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that motor vehicle. The 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle was sold on February 15, 2023, to a buyer named Apinash Thangavadivel. Apinash Thangavadivel did not appear in court to testify about his purchase of the motor vehicle.

166The charges set out in counts #25 and #26 apply in respect to the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle. Counts #25 and #26 are in relation to the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed. For count #25, the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, has been charged with committing the offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. And for count #26, the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, has been charged with the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”, contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

167Since the buyer, Apinash Thangavadivel, of the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle did not appear in court to testify about any representations made to the buyer by any of the three defendants nor has there been any evidence of any misrepresentation in an advertisement in respect to the sale of the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle, then the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, had committed the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation” set out in count of #26 beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, count #26 will be dismissed.

168However, in respect to count #25, as the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle from January 13, 2023 to January 15, 2023, before the vehicle was sold to the buyer, Apinash Thangavadivel, on January 15, 2023, which ultimately makes the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions related to the sale of that motor vehicle.

169Furthermore, there is evidence to support a reasonable inference that the three defendants as a family had been involved in selling or attempting to sell 11 motor vehicles between June 9, 2022 to June 30, 2023, as unregistered motor vehicle dealers in Ontario; that the defendants had advertised 2 motor vehicles for sale at the same time in Facebook Market Place (see Exhibit #14); that the defendants also informed buyer Sally Rashdan on August 18, 2022, that they were selling two motor vehicles at the same time of a Dodge Durango motor vehicle and the Nissan Rogue motor vehicle; that neither the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed Abdelsayed, nor the other two defendants were registered with OMVIC as a motor vehicle dealer or salesperson; that the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle had been in an accident; that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed Abdelsayed, had purchased the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle from Revive Auto Sales, an auto salvage company that sells motor vehicles that have been in an accident or have been damaged; and that the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle had been branded as “rebuilt”.

170However, there has been evidence adduced at trial which shows that the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle had been a “personal use” motor vehicle. This evidence consists of the following: that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, had registered a licence plate for the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle on November 30, 2022 and then removed the licence plate on June 22, 2023, when the motor vehicle had been sold to Apinash Thangavadivel, which means the motor vehicle could be lawfully driven on an Ontario highway for “personal use”; that there had been a significant change of 5250 km (average of 22.83 km of mileage per day during the defendant’s period of ownership of 230 days) in the odometer reading for the 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle during the period when the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, was the registered owner of the motor vehicle. Therefore, this particular evidence supports the defendants’ contention that the sale of the 2013 Acura ITL by the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, is exempted under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, as the evidence does show that the 2013 Acura ITL motor had been primarily used for “personal use” by the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, or a member of his family between November 4, 2022 to June 22, 2023, because of the significant amount of mileage of 5250 km put on the motor vehicle during the period of the defendant’s ownership; because a licence plate had been registered for the motor vehicle from November 30, 2022 to June 22, 2023, which allowed the motor vehicle to be driven on an Ontario highway for “personal use”; and because of the 230 days of ownership of the motor vehicle by the defendant.

171Ergo, the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, had committed the offence set out in count #25 of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so”, as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002. Ergo, count #25 is dismissed for the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed. Accordingly, acquittals will be entered for the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, for counts #25 and #26.

(F) HAVE THE DEFENDANTS PROVEN ON A BALANCE OF PROBALITIES THE DEFENCE OF DUE DILIGENCE?

172The defendants contend they had bought the motor vehicles at issue during the COVID pandemic so that they could drive for Uber, SkipTheDishes, or DoorDash, but then they had been told by Uber that the motor vehicles they had purchased would not be acceptable for carrying passengers. However, the defendants said that Uber would permit the motor vehicles to be used for food delivery, so the defendants realized that the motor vehicles that they had bought would not serve their original purpose of transporting passengers. In addition, the defendants also contend that the motor vehicles had been purchased for the use of their family members, but their family members did not like driving these vehicles, so it had been decided to sell them instead. To clarify this submission, the defendants explained that Revive Auto Sales, for liability concerns, would not let the defendants test drive the motor vehicles that they had purchased because the vehicles had been in an accident and Revive Auto Sales did not permit the defendants to drive the damaged motor vehicles until they were properly repaired and had passed a safety inspection. Moreover, the defendants said that Revive Auto Sales would then tow the damaged motor vehicles that the defendants had purchased to the repair shop, so the defendants could not drive the motor vehicles until they had been repaired and had passed the safety inspections.

173First, in respect to the argument that the motor vehicles had been originally purchased for the purpose of driving for “Uber”, one would think that after purchasing one motor vehicle that had been in an accident and after being told by “Uber” that the motor vehicle would not be acceptable by Uber for transporting people, then one would reasonably surmise that the defendants would no longer buy motor vehicles that had been in an accident if the defendants indeed had wanted to drive for Uber for the purpose of transporting people. In other words, the argument by the defendants that they had purchased a motor vehicle that had been damaged in an accident from Revive Auto Sales and then having that vehicle repaired so that it could be used to transport people for UBER, to only be told that motor vehicles involved in accidents could not be used to transport people, would be plausible for one of two vehicles purchased by the defendants because of ignorance. But, it certainly would not be plausible for the purchase of 11 motor vehicles that had been in an accident to be used for Uber purposes of transporting people, since the defendants had not purchased all 11 motor vehicles at the same time but had purchased the vehicles at different times. Also, 8 of the defendants’ 11 vehicles’ were not registered with a licence plate which indicates that these vehicles were also not being used as a vehicle to deliver food to consumers, nor had there been an intention to use the vehicles primarily for personal use, since these 8 motor vehicles could not be driven on an Ontario highway without having a licence plate registered to it. In addition, the odometer readings on 2 of the 11 motor vehicles purchased by the defendants had only a “0” and a “1” km change, respectively, in kilometers before they had been sold by the defendants, while 10 of the 11 motor vehicles had not been driven by the defendant for significant distances for the period that the motor vehicles had been owned by the defendants, in which the 10 vehicles had been driven for less than 1500 kilometers each. Additionally, only 3 of the 11 motor vehicles had licence plates registered to them during the period the defendants had been the registered owners, which means that only these 3 motor vehicles could be lawfully driven on an Ontario highway while the other 8 motor vehicles could not be driven on an Ontario highway for “personal use”, such as for “Uber”. However, for 2 of those 3 motor vehicles in which the defendants had registered a licence plate during their period of ownership of the vehicles, these two vehicles were only owned by the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, for 27 and 43 days respectively, and that the change in the odometer reading for these 2 motor vehicles were respectively 364 km and 1462 km, which is evidence that the 2 motor vehicles were not “personal use” motor vehicles because the defendant, Nabil Abdelsayed, did not own the 2 vehicles for very long and did not put very much mileage on the 2 motor vehicles during his period of ownership. Accordingly, the defendants’ contention that the motor vehicles had been originally purchased to be used for Uber is not evidence that the defendants had been under a mistake of fact or that they had taken all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offences of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, nor had the defendants been under a reasonable but mistaken belief of fact for the ss. 14(1) and 17(1) offences of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

174Furthermore, 10 of the 11 vehicles were only registered to the defendants between 1 day to 83 days before they were sold by the defendants; while the remaining motor vehicle had been owned by the defendant, Mina Abd Elsayed, for 230 days before it had been sold. The 2013 Acura ITL motor vehicle with VIN #19VDE1F76DE401684 had been registered in Mina Abd Elsayed’s name for 230 days before it had been sold.

175Ergo, the factual circumstances that the defendants did not own 10 of the 11 motor vehicles individually for more than 83 days of ownership is also not consistent with the assertion that the defendants had purchased the motor vehicles for their “personal use” as an exemption under s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, but is instead more consistent with the notion of buying damaged motor vehicles to repair them cheaply in order to sell them quickly as a business enterprise.

176Additionally, the defendants submit that they had arrived in Canada during the COVID pandemic and did not know about the rules pertaining to selling motor vehicles in Ontario. However, by virtue of s. 81 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, “ignorance of the law” is not a defence and is not evidence of due diligence in avoiding committing the offences that the prosecution has proven that the defendants have committed beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, Jerry Cimino, the Manager of Revive Auto sales, who had sold the 11 damaged motor vehicles to the defendants had testified that he had told the defendants that they cannot repair the motor vehicles they had purchased from Revive Auto sales for the improper purpose of reselling them to the public. This warning by Jerry Cimino, who had prepared the Bills Of Sales for the 11 motor vehicles that had been sold to the defendants, had provided them with the proper warning and notices about the motor vehicles being “insurance write-offs”, that the damage on the motor vehicles to be repaired had exceeded $3,000, and also whether the motor vehicles had been previously registered in Quebec. Moreover, Jerry Cimino is someone who is directly involved in buying damaged vehicles and then reselling them to the public so his warning to the defendants would be genuine information and guidance, and as such, this warning to the defendants about not selling the motor vehicles to the public after rebuilding and fixing them, would show that the defendants had knowledge about the possible impropriety or wrongfulness about repairing damage motor vehicles and then reselling them to the public, and would therefore undermine any due diligence defence for the defendants for the offences under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002.

177And, in respect to the defendants’ submission that if they had indeed wanted to make a profit in buying damaged motor vehicles and then fixing them and then selling them, then they would have bought the motor vehicles at auction for a cheaper price and would not have purchased the damage motor vehicles from Revive Auto Sales is also not persuasive, as only certain people or companies in general are legally permitted to buy damaged motor vehicles at an auction. In other words, in Ontario, only licensed automotive dealers, dismantlers, repairers, and exporters are authorized to buy damaged or salvage vehicles at major auctions. On the other hand, individuals can only typically purchase damaged or salvage vehicles through a licensed broker, which means the defendants could only purchase motor vehicles involved in an accident at an auction through a company like Revive Auto Sales.

178Furthermore, in regards to the defendants’ submission that they did not make any money on these motor vehicles that they had sold, since they themselves had to spend thousands of dollars in repairing the motor vehicles to make them road worthy, is also not evidence of due diligence by the defendants in avoiding committing the offences of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” or of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation”. More importantly, when the defendants had been asked if they had any receipts from the auto repair shops to prove that they had spent thousands of dollars in repairing the motor vehicles, the defendants stated that repair shops only do the work for cash and do not provide receipts. Hence, the defendants contention that they did not buy damaged motor vehicles to repair for the purpose of reselling the vehicles is also not persuasive as there is no evidence adduced at trial that would support this supposition that they did not make any money buying damaged motor vehicles to fix for resale. But more significantly, whether the defendants did make a profit or not is not an element of the offence that has to be proven by the prosecution for the s. 4(1)(a) offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002 nor for the ss. 14(1) and 17(1) offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

179In addition, the defendants did not adduce any evidence that the defendants had taken all reasonable steps in avoiding making misrepresentations or deliberate omissions to the buyer Sally Rashdan or to OMVIC Investigator Zambri, in his undercover capacity, in the sale or attempted sale of a motor vehicle or in not making the misleading statement in the Facebook Market Place advertisement that they resided in Cairo, Egypt, or that they had a reasonable but mistaken belief of a fact in respect to the offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

180Ergo, since the defendants have not proven on a balance of probabilities that they had purchased 10 of the 11 motor vehicles in question as “personal use” motor vehicles pursuant to s. 5 of the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, then they have not met their burden on proving on a balance of probabilities that they were under a reasonable belief in a mistaken fact or that they took all reasonable care or all reasonable steps in not committing the s. 4(1)(a) offence under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002 of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” in respect to counts #1, #3, #5, #9, #16, #18, #19, #31, #35, #36, #38 and #40 or in respect to the ss. 14(1) and 17(1) offence under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation” in respect to counts #6, #10, #17, #32 and #37.

7. DISPOSITION

181For the 40 counts set out in Information #23-6334, the following counts are the convictions and acquittals for the respective defendants:

(A) “Acting As A Motor Vehicle Dealer When Not Registered To Do So”

(1) For the s. 4(1)(a) offence of “acting as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so” under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the specific defendant is guilty of committing the s. 4(1)(a) offences set out in the following counts:

(i) For Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed convictions will be entered for counts #1, #3, #5, and #9.

(ii) For Mina Abd Elsayed convictions will be entered for counts #16, #18, and #19.

(iii) For Lillian Badie Alkomos Botros Kostandy convictions will be entered for counts #31, #35, #36, #38 and #40.

(2) Acquittals will be entered for the following counts for the s. 4(1)(a) offence under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002 where the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the specific defendant is guilty of committing one of the s. 4(1)(a) offences:

(i) Acquittals will be entered for Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed for counts #7, #11, and #13.

(ii) Acquittals will be entered for Mina Abd Elsayed for counts #14, #21, #23 and #25.

(iii) Acquittals will be entered for Lillian Badie Alkomos Botros Kostandy for counts #27, #29, and #33.

(B) “Engaging In An Unfair Practice By Making False, Misleading Or Deceptive Representation”

(1) For the ss. 14(1) and 17(1) offence of “engaging in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representation” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the specific defendant is guilty of committing the ss. 14(1) and 17(1) offences set out in the following counts:

(i) For Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed convictions will be entered for counts #6 and #10.

(ii) For Mina Abd Elsayed a conviction will be entered for count #17.

(iii) For Lillian Badie Alkomos Botros Kostandy convictions will be entered for counts #32 and #37.

(2) Acquittals will be entered for the following counts for the ss. 14(1) and 17(1) offence under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 where the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the specific defendant is guilty of committing one of the ss. 14(1) and 17(1) offences:

(i) Acquittals will be entered for Nabil Zakaria Habashy Abdelsayed for counts #2, #4 and #8, and #12.

(ii) Acquittals will be entered for Mina Abd Elsayed for counts #15, #20, #22, #24, and #26.

(iii) Acquittals will be entered for Lillian Badie Alkomos Botros Kostandy for counts #28, #30, #34, and #39.