Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council v. Christian Nicholas Irven Jover

2026 ONCJ 45

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026-01-28

COURT FILE No.: Barrie 25-0978

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY COUNCIL

-- AND --

CHRISTIAN NICHOLAS IRVEN JOVER

Before Justice of the Peace C. Noordegraaf

Heard on January 8, 2026

Reasons for Judgment released on January 28, 2026

Jean Iu -- counsel for the prosecution

The defendant Christian Jover -- on his own behalf

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE C. NOORDEGRAAF

INTRODUCTION

[1] The accused pleaded not guilty to six offences under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule B (hereinafter "the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act") and the Consumer Protection Act, Statutes of Ontario, 2002, Chapter 30, Schedule A (hereinafter "the Consumer Protection Act").

[2] Specifically, he is charged that he acted as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so in relation to four vehicles and that he engaged in an unfair practice by making false, misleading or deceptive representations regarding the trade of two vehicles.

[3] The prosecution has advised that they will be inviting an acquittal on count #4 on the Information, being a charge under the Consumer Protection Act. In total there are four vehicles at issue:

(a) A 2006 Acura CSX

Alleged that between November 7, 2024 and November 13, 2024 he acted as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so as required by s.4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, thereby committing an offence under s. 32 of the said act; and

It is further alleged that he engaged in an unfair practice contrary to ss. 14(1) and 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, and thereby committed an offence pursuant to s. 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said act.

(b) A 2006 BMW X3

Alleged that between October 26, 2024 and January 27, 2025 that he acted as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so as required by s.4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, thereby committing an offence under s. 32 of the said act.

(c) A 2011 Acura CSX

Alleged that between January 10, 2025 and February 24, 2025 that he acted as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so as required by s.4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, thereby committing an offence under s. 32 of the said act.

(d) A 2016 Kia Sorento

Alleged that between March 14, 2025 and April 16, 2025 that he acted as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered to do so as required by s.4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, thereby committing an offence under s. 32 of the said act.

[4] This was a four-witness case with testimony from two OMVIC employees, two civilians and the accused.

[5] There is little dispute as to the facts. Mr. Jover acknowledges that he placed the advertisements for the relevant vehicles with online marketplaces, communicated with buyers, including undercover buyers employed by OMVIC, and that he completed sales of several vehicles in the span of a several months. His position is that all of the sales should fall within the following exemption set out in Section 5 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act:

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.

EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE 2006 ACURA CSX

[6] Mike Bennett is a member of the public who was browsing various online marketplaces in search of a vehicle in the autumn of 2024. He saw an advertisement for a 2006 Acura CSX that had been placed by Mr. Jover and reached out to him. They exchanged a number of text messages in which they discussed the mechanical fitness of the vehicle and what it might take to have it certified. Mr. Jover advised that he would change the rear brakes and do an oil change prior to the sale. Mr. Bennett viewed the car in the driveway at the accused's residence in Barrie, took it for a short test drive, and they agreed upon a price of $4300. Mr. Bennett acquired a bank draft in the amount of $4300 payable to the accused on November 12, 2024.

[7] Mr. Jover suggested to Mr. Bennett that he under-report the price of the vehicle when registering it in order to pay tax on a lower amount. He provided a bill of sale that reflected a sale price of $1000. The vehicle remained with Mr. Jover while Mr. Bennett took steps to have it registered in his name with the Ministry of Transportation. This occurred on November 13, 2024.

[8] At the time of registration, Mr. Bennett became aware that Mr. Jover had not owned the vehicle as long has he had earlier claimed. He sent the following text message to the accused: "The vehicle history report says you registered this car on Nov 7th 2024. I thought you said you bought this car last year and have been driving it around?" The accused responded "It was in my wife's familys name before I registered it I think it was registered under her dad. We have been driving it for about a year but only switched over the ownership recently after he past away." Mr. Bennett replied "Ok all good then, I don't think I'll make 10am but I'll try lol."

[9] At trial, Mr. Jover admitted that he had lied to Mr. Bennett, that he had actually purchased the vehicle on November 7, 2024, and that it was not purchased from anyone in his wife's family. He testified that after purchasing the vehicle, he registered it in his own name, insured it, and that he listed it for sale the following day. He testified that he did this because he realized that the insurance would be $300 more than he expected. He explained the difference between his $1900 purchase price and the $4300 selling price as a function of work that he did on the vehicle, and that he got a good deal on it but sold it for retail value.

[10] About two weeks after the purchase, Mr. Bennett attempted to have the muffler patched and discovered substantial frame damage. The frame behind the exhaust was rotted through, rendering the vehicle unsafe to drive. Mr. Bennett learned that the cost to repair the damaged frame would be more than twice what he originally paid for the vehicle. He contacted Mr. Jover and asked to undo the transaction or to negotiate a price to return it. Mr. Jover refused, advising that the car had been sold "as is," that he is not a dealer, that the Consumer Protection Act does not apply to private sales, and that he therefore does not owe anything to Mr. Bennett.

[11] Mr. Jover takes the position that as Mr. Bennett had provided payment and registered the vehicle into his own name prior to receiving the text message containing the lie about the vehicle having been owned by his wife's family, that the lie could not have induced Mr. Bennett to purchase the vehicle. He did not address the issue of his pre-sale statement to Mr. Bennett about having driven the car for the past year.

[12] At the time of trial, Mr. Bennett advised that he still owns the car, but that it sits in a field as it is too unsafe to operate.

EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE 2006 BMW X3

[13] Scott Virtue is the manager of Complaints, Inquiries and Compliance for OMVIC. He was involved with the case as an undercover buyer following a tip to their anti-curbsider hotline. He responded to an advertisement for a 2006 BMW X3, listed by Mr. Jover on Kijiji for $3300. He viewed an advertisement on January 6, 2025, noting that it had been placed on December 24th and that it stated "Over 4k invoices since 2022, well maintained, always kept up with service."

[14] Mr. Virtue attended at Mr. Jover's residence on January 8, 2025. Mr. Jover told him that he had owned the vehicle since September and provided invoices for work that had been performed on it. The invoices showed the owner of the vehicle at the time was a numbered company. Mr. Jover told Mr. Virtue that he had purchased the car as a "winter beater" but that he had decided to purchase an Acura MDX instead. MTO records show that the accused had purchased the vehicle on October 26, 2024.

[15] The accused testified that after purchasing the vehicle in October, he had to buy a new battery and replace the alternator within two weeks. He put it into his name on October 26th but testified that he purchased the vehicle earlier than that. He and his wife drove it from October through January. After welcoming a daughter in December, he took eight weeks of leave from work and did not need a second vehicle on the road. He then listed the vehicle for about what he paid considering the work that he had done on it.

[16] Mr. Jover ultimately sold the BMW to a member of the public who called him with issues shortly after the sale. He testified that the buyer spent $2000 on repairs despite the accused's advice to save money by sourcing used parts. He maintains that his advertisement was not misleading as he did not explicitly say that he was the owner who had spent over $4000 on repairs and maintenance since 2022. Further, he maintains that he had no obligation to disclose known deficiencies of the vehicle to the buyer as he is not a registered dealer.

EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE 2011 ACURA CSX

[17] Marc Duvall is the Manager of Investigations for OMVIC. He reached out to the accused as an undercover buyer regarding a 2011 Acura CSX that the accused had listed on Facebook Marketplace for $4800. Mr. Duvall set up a meeting and attended at the accused's address in Barrie on January 19, 2025. Mr. Jover advised him that he had purchased the car as a "winter beater," that he was thinking about putting snow tires and alloy rims on it, that there was lots of life left in the brakes, and that he did not know what it would take to certify it. He said he had owned it "not long" and "less than a year." In fact, according to MTO records, the vehicle had been registered in his name only two days prior.

[18] At trial, the accused testified that he had purchased the vehicle on January 7, 2025. He testified that he was trying to sell it as he had two summer cars that he brings out and that he ultimately sold the car to a member of the public on March 15, 2025.

EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE 2016 KIA SORENTO

[19] Mr. Jover purchased the 2016 Kia Sorento from his employer, Georgian BMW Mini, where he works as a lot attendant. The vehicle had come into the dealership as a trade-in, and Mr. Jover paid $6500 for it on March 14, 2025, registering it under his own name on the same date.

[20] He testified at trial that right after buying the vehicle he realized that there was no oil in it and suspected that it was traded in because it was burning through oil. He did an engine flush but it still burned through a litre of oil per 1000 kilometers and it was more than he could keep up with. He testified that he did not approach his employer about the issue with the car as he had purchased it "as is" and did not want trouble at work.

[21] He listed it for sale on Facebook Marketplace on April 1, 2025 for $10,500. The advertisement included the following statements: "No warning light or mechanical issue -- had the car serviced recently -- insured and I drive it to work everyday -- serviced with synthetic oil every 5k -- only issue I am having with the vehicle is the rearview camera is not getting a picture, and there was a minor Carfax claim in 2015 for front right. Also the passenger front door has some rust."

[22] Scott Virtue of OMVIC reached out to Mr. Jover as an undercover buyer. He expressed interest in the vehicle and subsequently attended at Mr. Jover's address on April 16, 2025, taking photos of the vehicle during the short meeting.

[23] At trial, Mr. Jover testified that he listed the car for sale because he did not want to own it when the engine failed, and that he was asking for $4000 more than he paid for it because he expected that people would lowball him.

[24] He advised that after he was subpoenaed in relation to these charges, he decided not to sell the car and it seized in September, 2025.

ANALYSIS

[25] I am satisfied as to the elements of date, identity, jurisdiction and that Mr. Jover was not registered as a motor vehicle dealer on the relevant dates.

[26] I now consider whether the s.5 exemption in the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act should apply to his various trades in motor vehicles and whether he made a false, misleading or deceptive representation contrary to the Consumer Protection Act regarding the 2006 Acura CSX.

[27] The definition of "trade" in s.1 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act "includes buying, selling, leasing, advertising or exchanging an interest in a motor vehicle ..."

[28] The Consumer Protection Act applies to persons as well as to suppliers such as motor vehicle dealers and lists at section 14 a number of examples of false, misleading or deceptive representations, including:

• a representation that the goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model, if they are not ...
• a representation that the goods have been used to an extent that is materially different from the fact ...
• 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.

[29] Mr. Jover admits that he advertised and/or sold vehicles during the relevant dates, and to the communications attributed to him. He argues that the exemption at s.5 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act does not specify a minimum length of time that a private seller must own a vehicle prior to listing it for sale, and that each of his trades should therefore fall within the exemption. He argues that he was not trading in motor vehicles for profit, but that he simply changed his mind quickly about each of the vehicles. He points to the fact that he registered the vehicles in his own name, insured them, and had buyers attend at his home address. He testified that if he was a "real curbsider" that he would have been impossible to track down after a sale.

[30] Mr. Jover testified that he had taken the OMVIC course and was aware of the disclosure obligations that bind a motor vehicle dealer. It is also clear from his communications with Mr. Bennett and from his evidence at trial that he was familiar with the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and the Consumer Protection Act. When he was asked during cross-examination about having listed vehicles with known problems for sale, and whether he understands that registered dealers have an obligation to disclose such problems, he responded glibly "but I'm not a registered dealer."

[31] Mr. Jover appears to presume that by characterizing his trades as private sales that he was exempting himself from the requirement to make the honest disclosure about known defects that would be required of a motor vehicle dealer, and that he was also protected from liability under the Consumer Protection Act.

[32] Mr. Jover's representation to Mr. Bennett, that he and his wife had been driving the 2006 Acura CSX for the past year, was a false and deceptive representation. The obvious goal of this representation was to induce Mr. Bennett into believing that Mr. Jover was intimately familiar with the condition of the vehicle and that this was a legitimate private sale.

[33] The prohibition against making misleading or deceptive representations in the Consumer Protection Act, however, does not specify that such representations are only prohibited before the completion of a sale, nor that the representation must have acted as an inducement to purchase. Regardless, it is clear in this case that misrepresentations about the 2006 Acura CSX occurred both before and after the sale. At the time of registration, Mr. Bennett was surprised to learn how briefly Mr. Jover had owned the vehicle as this information conflicted with Mr. Jover's previous statement that he had owned and driven the vehicle for the last year.

[34] The prosecution submits, and I agree, that whether the vehicles were used primarily for Mr. Jover's personal use and therefore fall within the exemption is a question of actual use as opposed to intention. Mr. Jover asserts that he changed his mind about each of the vehicles after purchasing them and that the exemption does not specify a minimum length of time that one must own a vehicle prior to trading it. I am advised that there are presently no reported cases that consider the application of the s.5 exemption under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act. I therefore consider each of the trades in turn and collectively through a common sense lens:

(a) The 2006 Acura CSX was purchased by the accused on November 6, 2024 for $1900, registered in his own name and then advertised for sale the following day for $4300. Mr. Jover testified at trial that he listed it for sale as he discovered the insurance would be too expensive. It was sold to Mr. Bennett on November 13, 2024.

(b) The 2006 BMW X3 was purchased by the accused on October 26, 2024 and was listed for sale on December 24, 2024. Mr. Jover testified that he listed it for sale because he took parental leave for 8 weeks following the birth of his daughter on December 20th and did not need a second car on the road. This explanation is implausible however, as his parental leave was a situation that would have been foreseeable at the time that he purchased the vehicle in late October.

(c) The 2011 Acura CSX was purchased by the accused on January 7, 2025 and advertised for sale on January 8, 2025. Mr. Jover registered it in his own name on January 27, 2025. He testified that he listed it right immediately as he wanted to use it as a "winter beater" but expected it would take a while to sell and that he had two summer cars that he brings out so would not need it come springtime. It makes little sense that he purchased this vehicle on January 7th when he had just listed the BMW for sale on December 24th because he did not need two cars on the road at the time.

(d) The 2016 Kia Sorento was purchased by the accused on March 14, 2025 for $6500 and listed for sale on April 1, 2025 for $10,500. Despite learning almost immediately that the vehicle was burning an unusual amount of oil and his belief that it was in imminent danger of seizing, he listed the vehicle for $4000 more than he paid and without any disclosure of the oil issue. Again, it is curious that Mr. Jover is purchasing another vehicle when he had decided so recently that he did not need the 2006 Acura, the BMW or the 2011 Acura.

[35] Mr. Jover's account of his reasons for acquiring and trading in each of the vehicles lacks credibility, especially when considered as a whole. The circumstances surrounding the trades of the four vehicles clearly demonstrate a pattern of trading in vehicles for profit as opposed to legitimate personal use. I consider the speed at which the vehicles are listed for sale after each purchase, his attempt to earn substantial profit on the trades and the number of vehicles in which he traded. Although he and his wife did drive the vehicles while they were in his possession, this use appears to have been incidental and secondary to the goal of turning the vehicles over quickly and for a profit. Mr. Jover confirmed this himself in his evidence when he stated "I buy, do the repairs myself and then sell them."

[36] That Mr. Jover registered the vehicles in his own name, that he insured them, and that he met with buyers at his home address are not determinative of the issue of whether these vehicles were used primarily for his personal use. It is clear that Mr. Jover was familiar with the s.5 exemption at the time given his conversation with Mr. Bennett and the fact that he had taken the OMVIC course. In his case, taking these steps is equally as consistent with a calculated attempt to frame the trades as private sales to harness the s.5 exemption as it is with legitimate personal use.

CONCLUSION

[37] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Jover acted as a motor vehicle dealer regarding the trade of the four vehicles when not registered to do so, and that he made a false, misleading and deceptive statement regarding the 2006 Acura CSX. I therefore find him guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 on the Information. I have been invited to acquit on count 4 and I do so.

Released: January 28, 2026

Signed: Justice of the Peace C. Noordegraaf