Ontario owners: how long does it take to receive the government rebate?

Does anyone have a copy of the letter that was sent from the MTO to dealers on July 11th?

 

Hello! I feel like I came across this forum a little too late!! Trying to catch up on everything in the thread but it's a lot to take in.

My info: Yorkdale VW, purchased August 2017, received August 2018, denied February 2019...sounds like the majority of you are in the same boat...

I never considered an appeal because I was made to believe that it was between the MTO and dealerships, and it was just a matter of the dealership resubmitting the list to the MTO. Now I feel like I have not done enough, and hope to be able to backtrack, because I am not walking away from this without my $14,000.

Where do we stand with the possibility of a class act? I'm all in!

 

Some useful arguments can be pulled from Tesla's case: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc5062/2018onsc5062.html?resultIndex=1

 

Contact these guys
https://www.polleyfaith.com/contact-us/

 

I agree that the onus is on MTO. I would not let the dealer off the hook though… Nor would I accept what the manufacturer is saying that it is a dealer issue. I would continue all things people are doing, contacting their MPP, the media Also, send an email to the Premier. He will trickle it back down to the Ministry of transportation, but perhaps a little bit more pressure. Good luck on redressing this wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Inside EVs

 

What's the latest from your end?

 

It only costs $102 to file a claim in small claims court.

Wouldn't a single class action lawsuit just make it easier for the defendants, as opposed to them having to deal with dozens of small claims actions, which in turn might pressure them to settle?

Personally, my appeal was succesful, and it turns out my vehicle was on the list the whole time... *insert eye roll*... very strange, but whatever...

I hope someone goes ahead and sues, and I put at least 90% of the blame on the MTO. Be careful when suing the government that you don't forget to give the required 60 days notice before filing a claim!

 

I've felt the same way, and obviously waiting the 60 days after notifying them to file a claim is not a big deal,

But... I'm worried about losing and then having to pay costs. This could turn out to be much, much more than the $102 as you suggest - I had said $200 in an earlier post to cover other court costs. I'm sure there are some sort of guidelines on how much in "costs" could be awarded, but don't know for sure. Ultimately I worry that the government could simply say that this was always a discretionary program, not related to a prior service provided or goods ,or other tangible source of debt.

I think the best bet for anyone thinking about a claim is to get competent legal advice. I've been denied and Am as angry as anyone, but I feel like maybe I need to be protected from myself before filing a claim. As much as I'd love to march into the office of the Attorney General and announce that they've been served.

 

Using Tesla example may not helped, at 600 order of at least $70K each, you are talking about 42 million of revenue for Tesla, of course they will sue. The fact that they are deliberately excluded from the incentive also help the case.

In your case, I don't think you can claim the 'List' is not known to GENERAL PUBLIC, and thus you have no way to find out won't help IMO. The 'List' is a requirement and has been communicated to the manufacturers, and it's their duty to inform their dealers, the fact that some of their dealers are 'notified' but not others, and the fact that some of the customers in a particular dealer got the rebate but not you clearly indicated the fault was with the dealers or the manufactures.

Mind you, taking the legal route is a long way to get this settled, and you may be held responsible for the legal cost at the end. That is, it's not the $200 you talk about. What I suggest to do is setup a meeting with all those affected with the dealer (VW?) and settle this out of court. Yes, it is SAD.

 

Latest from Sean at the MTO for all of us who got our eGolfs from Yorkdale VW:

“We haven’t heard anything from Yorkdale VW for a month. They told us they were looking for proof that they’d sent the list, and we haven’t had any communication with them since.”

For me, this means I’ve been lied to repeatedly by the dealership, and I’m sure I’m not the only one.

 

So clearly VW Yorkdale (and VW Canada) is guilty of mis-representation when they sold eGolf between July 17 , 2018 to September 11 ,2018 by telling their customers , in writing and orally, that the vehicle satisfied all EHVIP cancelled program requirements- which was not true since they had failed to send the list in the prescribed time.They are liable and need to compensate each and everyone for $14,000.

 

Before my appeal was miraculously approved, my lawyer advised me to name all three (the MTO, the dealer, and the car manufacturer) in a claim, as it's not so clear cut who is to blame. The government has a duty of fairness to its constituents. For many people, at the time they filed for their rebate, the eligibility requirements for the incentive outlined by the government did not make any mention of an "order list". Changing the rules after the fact is simply not fair. This wasn't a discretionary program. The matter of the incentive is between the person filing the application and the MTO. If you meet the MTO's requirements, you get the incentive. If the MTO had another requirement that it made of the dealers, through the manufacturers, that is between the MTO and the manufacturers/dealers.

As a separate issue, if a dealer sold you a car on the premise that it was eligible for an incentive, but it was actually not eligible because of the dealer's failure to comply with a government condition, that is fraudulent misrepresentation on behalf of the dealer. I've seen the letter the MTO sent to the manufacturers though, and it isn't clear from that letter that failure to submit a vehicle's VIN to the MTO would render that vehicle ineligible.

There seems to be enough blame to throw around, and if it goes to court, ultimately it will be up to a judge to decide. I hope someone takes this to court, because the one person who is NOT to blame in all this is the consumer!

 

I would also name the Ministry of Finance as they were responsible for determining eligibility of vehicles. When we called, we were told on 2 different occasions by 2 different people that our car was eligible despite being purchased out of province, as long as it was plated in Ontario. We are still waiting to hear anything but will likely be consulting a lawyer.

 

Following discussion with a lawyer it seems the most economical way is a collective legal action by all involved in a specific dealership . The minimum number of claimant would need to in the 15-20 range . We may reach this number for VW Yorkdale dealership. Are there any suggestions on how we can get these people together.

 

Very difficult to blame dealers that were never notified. They also were not offering the rebate. Because the manufacturers were all notified they are to blame for not communicating rebate eligibility to the customer.

My Tesla case reference is for those that purchased out of province... They are being arbitrarily singled out just like Tesla was. But in Tesla's case they were notified. Out of province purchasers were not notified.

 

Another thing I see in the Tesla ruling is that the judge quotes the eligibility criteria for the incentive, and there is no mention of "being on a dealer's order list" as one of the criteria. Very suspicious that the MTO's website was updated only a few days after the Tesla ruling was published!

 

Using Tesla case is very weak...

Tesla is the manufacturer, they were notified when government cancelled the program. When Tesla called MTO to get more information, they were told "Never mind, you are not included since you don't have a 'Franchised dealer network in Ontario'. Tesla was always in the EV Rebate program and was excluded deliberately. Therefore, in the judge decision, no mention of "being on a dealer's order list" was quoted.

The initial criteria was "Vehicles are on Dealer's lot, or in order for transit to dealer" or something similar, again, this was to prevent other EV cars that weren't SOLD in other provinces or even in the states to by September to suddenly shown up in Ontario to qualify for the rebate. That is exactly one of the cases where someone get a car from Quebec and bring it to Ontario. That car wasn't on the list.

I just wondering why other manufacturers/dealers have no problem providing the list except VW. MTO has a very strong point there. General public won't care and actually many people support the government in cancelling the rebate. The reasoning is why do I subsidize those people with $14,000 of my hard earned money to buy a car. And if someone find out someone gets the rebate through the back door, they would wondering 'Why government don't ask for a list'.

I am playing Devil Advocate, I know.

 

We were all applicants to a well promoted incentive. We all met the criteria that was on the website (and in a ton of media releases) after the cancellation and the criteria in the application form. We all qualified for it - some even called to confirm. They changed the criteria without informing applicants and their own people at the MTO and MOF. They had a website and an application pdf. Both could have easily been updated with the information. The government failed to inform - until they quietly put it onto their documents and website on August 31st.
We will be contacting our lawyer once we hear from the ombudsman. Let's keep our posts positive and share how we move forward. Let's be supportive of one another, however we each proceed.

 

The most recent 2096E Guide says "Vehicles ordered on or prior to July 11, 2018 or were on an Ontario lot are eligible for an incentive..."

I read this as vehicle orders from any jurisdiction that were done prior to July 11, 2018 or vehicles on Ontario lots.

Please let me know if you read this differently.