Ontario EV Rebates Cancelled July 11, 2018

[Abrew2014]

Financial Post: "The government said it decided to include only independently owned franchised dealerships in the transition funding in order to minimize negative impacts to small- or medium-sized businesses, and that such dealerships may have vehicle inventory or made orders with manufacturers that could not be returned."

What, so without a rebate no one is going to buy them?

Since when do mfg's NOT provide dealerships with inventory incentives for remaining stock? As if they want publicity that their EV/PHEV couldn't sell. The ON government are just digging a deeper hole for themselves with statements like this. I hope they are taken to task.

Agreed, every time they react to one of Tesla's moves it's been another "oh *sugar* moment". Soon we'll have a tunnel to China without the boring company's help .

Also this "for the people" slogan is backfiring if you think about the people who ordered the car in good faith of his tweeted promised that all cars ordered before July 11th will be included in the rebate program.

They're every bit a citizen of Ontario as any of these dealer networks, pay the same taxes, breathe the same air, works hard to build a life in this awesome province. If he's truly for the people - he'd make policies that benefit the people (cough cough sex ed, mincome, 25 city councilors). Everything this government has done to date has been deconstructive and backwards thinking.

Over 90 per cent of people agree with him cutting city council

He got elected campaigning on sex Ed changes.....some people must be happy

I don’t agree with half his policies, but acting like Tesla has public support is laughable

 

[thesaadone]

Tesla should take some responsibility for showcasing the 14K on their site. When I asked my delivery specialist this their response was "its the best car in the World". I couldnt agree more. But, at the time of order why was 14k taken off the price to make my financing look much more attractive.

The way they are acting now should be only if they never showcased the 14k rebate on their site. I'm trying to see if there are any lawyers in here that think we may have a case. I read somewhere about a A class action lawsuit against Tesla by some of the members here. Anyone know?

 

[Blu Angel]

I got a red LR RWD and ordered the 18” standard black Aero. I’m hoping it will happen before the 10th ... that’s what I’ve been told and that large shipments are expected end of August as Tesla works on quarterly timelines.

@Samina,
Tesla Inc I see very understanding of the Ontario consumer.
Once Tesla realized the possibility of a PC govt gaining power, with its threat to end EV rebates for "Rich Tesla Owners',
It earmarked a speed-up delivery for those Tesla orders with the LR and PUP Interiors

Tesla made sure to deliver these LR Tesla 3's before June 7th Ontario election
(1850 Tesla 3's were delivered in Ontario)
Now, once again, Tesla is batching delivering a load of Tesla 3 LR before the Sept 10th cut-offf date.
This will guarantee the $14,000 EV rebate for these Ontarians
Anecdotally, I presume no AWD Tesla 3 will be included in this batch delivery because the AWD was never validated
and included into the EVHIP program by the previous Liberal govt

They definitely want it tossed which would put a quick end to it. Now we wait for a decision on that. Pretty sure it's not an automatic toss. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

@felixculpas,
Ontario Court of Appeal will have its say!
Remember, it's the judicial branch that holds the legislative and executive branches in line

Three branches work together to govern Canada: the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The executive branch (also called the Government) is the decision-making branch, made up of the Monarch(represented by the Governor General), the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet. The legislative branch is the law-making branch, made up of the appointed Senate and the elected House of Commons. The judicial branch is a series of independent courts that interpret the laws passed by the other two branches.

I’m telling you Ford Fusion Energi, great specs and enough battery for most daily commutes, unless your daily drive is pure highway more then 35KM each way then it’s a great car

FORD Canada is proud to introduce its newest spokesperson, the Right Honourable Abrew.

The quick end to it would be for them to simply rework the wind down to include all manufacturers. Seems simple and fair.

@dusdev, this would suggest that this PC govt would be reasonable.
"Buck a Beer" Premier has shown himself to be vindictive, pettty and irrational!

 

[felixculpas]

He got elected because everyone had such a hate on for the liberals. I would hazard that most of his votes came from people that didn't really fully understand what he'd be doing, they just wanted a change that he lucked into.

The degree to which Tesla has public support is irrelevant in court.

@thesaadone - I have no clue where you are getting that from. Do some searches and provide links please.

 

[aaronbrighton]

Not to mention that other dealers got a heads up about the program being cancelled and ordered the maximum amount of vehicles. Take my word or not but I have spoken to a few GM dealers that have confirmed this. They even said if they could've ordered more, they would have.

Based on Canuck's comment, below:

What part of the constitution is violated? I say it will be tossed because we elect governments to make these decisions and Courts are reluctant to wade into policy matters unless malice or corruption can be shown that I don't see being in play here. But I guess we'll find out.

Someone really ought to get proof of these dealers having a heads-up from the PC government, I think if anything, that would border on corruption.

 

[aaronbrighton]

Based on Canuck's comment, below:



Someone really ought to get proof of these dealers having a heads-up from the PC government, I think if anything, that would border on corruption.

And totally mess up their theme of helping the dealers out with getting cars off the lots.

 

[Abrew2014]

@Samina,
Tesla Inc I see very understanding of the Ontario consumer.
Once Tesla realized the possibility of a PC govt gaining power, with its threat to end EV rebates for "Rich Tesla Owners',
It earmarked a speed-up delivery for those Tesla orders with the LR and PUP Interiors

Tesla made sure to deliver these LR Tesla 3's before June 7th Ontario election
(1850 Tesla 3's were delivered in Ontario)
Now, once again, Tesla is batching delivering a load of Tesla 3 LR before the Sept 10th cut-offf date.
This will guarantee the $14,000 EV rebate for these Ontarians
Anecdotally, I presume no AWD Tesla 3 will be included in this batch delivery because the AWD was never validated
and included into the EVHIP program by the previous Liberal govt



@felixculpas,
Ontario Court of Appeal will have its say!
Remember, it's the judicial branch that holds the legislative and executive branches in line

Three branches work together to govern Canada: the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The executive branch (also called the Government) is the decision-making branch, made up of the Monarch(represented by the Governor General), the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet. The legislative branch is the law-making branch, made up of the appointed Senate and the elected House of Commons. The judicial branch is a series of independent courts that interpret the laws passed by the other two branches.



FORD Canada is proud to introduce its newest spokesperson, the Right Honourable Abrew.



@dusdev, this would suggest that this PC govt would be reasonable.
"Buck a Beer" Premier has shown himself to be vindictive, pettty and irrational!

When you go on a website saying how much you like a car you’re a hero....when someone for another company does it they’re a spokesperson

 

[sitter_k]

From Facebook user Christopher Arnold

"So of course I am cheerleading from the sidelines because I hope Tesla wins the case - but (putting on my lawyer hat now) remember that governments have very VERY wide discretion to make policy. you may not agree, or feel it is "fair" (think about that word for a minute and realize it is one of the most subjective words in the language). My hope is that the reasoning they will supply (we are protecting dealers from getting stuck with inventory) will fail because 1. the incentive program wasn't FOR dealers, it was for CONSUMERS only. 2. Tesla is a dealer - registered with OMVIC, etc etc. 3. the effect of the way they are cancelling is to improperly prejudice one group of citizens harmed by their policy shift over another - for capricious reasons. 4. another perhaps relevant factoid - dealerships make almost zero $ on sales - their entire biz model is service-money driven."

He forgot 5) Mercedes Benz corporate stores will also be grandfathered in, but great points.

 

[5_+JqckQttqck]

Brand loyalties aside - everyone on here has interest in EVs and greener vehicles. Lets keep personal attacks off the screen.

The main conflict in this 200page + thread is Ontario Government vs Tesla in the way it handled the rebate cancellation. However you argue it, the government made very specific language and then amended that language after it found out their initial announcement didn't do the job 100% to exclude their initial target.

My question is... what do they (the PCs) intend to do with the left over monies that is already funded through Cap and Trade - 2.9 billion dollars worth of credits bought by Ontario Businesses is no chump change. Those companies and their lawyers are behinds doors waiting to see how Tesla vs ON PCs goes before launching their own lawsuits to reclaim that money.

 

[haromaem]

Not to mention that other dealers got a heads up about the program being cancelled and ordered the maximum amount of vehicles. Take my word or not but I have spoken to a few GM dealers that have confirmed this. They even said if they could've ordered more, they would have.

I highly suggest pointing this out to Tesla lawyers if you are comfortable with it. If this can be proven I would think this is illegal. Collusion the right word?

 

[Samina]

I call it dirty politics.... you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. I just know when it comes to the courts they have a very different way looking at things .... if it’s unconstitutional Tesla will win. The way they cancelled the program was procedurally unfair to the consumers as well as Tesla. Another term I’ve become familiar with (legal term) is “doctrine of legitimate expectations”. Meaning when the consumers made the purchase they made it in good faith. Tesla is off the hook when it comes to this as they offered a refund to consumers (since they displayed the $14K rebate on their website). It’s the Government who is on the hook.... and I hope the courts make sure to hold them accountable. Just because they got elected (just good timing if you ask me!) does not mean they can come in bulldoze their way in with their decisions. Yes, they are given power, but that power has to be used within the way our constitution interprets it... they don’t get to decide... the courts do!

 

[Canuck]

Yes, they are given power, but that power has to be used within the way our constitution interprets it... they don’t get to decide... the courts do!

Have you studied constitutional law in Canada? I ask because your comments show a glaring lack of knowledge of what it contains. If you haven't studied it, do you even know what documents comprise our Constitution? Below is some info for you because it seems to me you need to read and learn before you post categorical statements like the one above, that are clearly and obviously false, according to our Constitution! The Courts do not get to decide on all issues -- that would make the Courts supreme and our Constitution has a check on all branches of government, including the Courts. None are supreme -- it is based on checks and balances -- especially in 1982 when Trudeau Sr. updated it. Courts must have "jurisdiction" and after that inherent, legislative or common-law authority to rule on the issue. When it comes to things like the way the government acted here, the Courts may not even have the authority to change a government decision -- because of the Constitution - that not only allows for -- but demands -- a division of powers between legislative, executive and judicial branches. To try to tell us the courts get the final say just shows a glaring ignorance of Canada's Constitution, which, it appears you do not know, is composed of some documents that you really need to read to see what they say before you post categorical statements about it.

The composition of the Constitution of Canada is defined in subsection 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, as consisting of the Canada Act 1982(including the Constitution Act, 1982), all acts and orders referred to in the schedule (including the Constitution Act, 1867, formerly the British North America Act, 1867), and any amendments to these documents.[4] The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the list is not exhaustive and includes a number of pre-confederation acts and unwritten components as well.[5] See list of Canadian constitutional documents for details.

Now, please tell me by reference to any of the Acts above that compromise our Constitution what particular clause or section you are saying the government breached? As you look for one (since it seems to me this will be the first time you read them) you will likely come to the conclusion that what was done is not prohibited by any of the documents that comprise our Constitution -- but if there is one, you can bet Tesla's lawyers will argue it and we will see what happens.

 

[Velianou]

I call it dirty politics.... you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. I just know when it comes to the courts they have a very different way looking at things .... if it’s unconstitutional Tesla will win. The way they cancelled the program was procedurally unfair to the consumers as well as Tesla. Another term I’ve become familiar with (legal term) is “doctrine of legitimate expectations”. Meaning when the consumers made the purchase they made it in good faith. Tesla is off the hook when it comes to this as they offered a refund to consumers (since they displayed the $14K rebate on their website). It’s the Government who is on the hook.... and I hope the courts make sure to hold them accountable. Just because they got elected (just good timing if you ask me!) does not mean they can come in bulldoze their way in with their decisions. Yes, they are given power, but that power has to be used within the way our constitution interprets it... they don’t get to decide... the courts do!

The PC governments defense was quoted as:

" However, the government's response said the decision to revoke the rebate program was made for "valid public reasons."

The government said it decided to include only independently owned franchised dealerships in the transition funding in order to minimize negative impacts to the largely small or medium-sized businesses and that such dealerships may have vehicle inventory or made orders with manufacturers that could not be returned."

Well, Tesla has proof of orders with the Manufacturer. also, there statement of independently owned franchised dealerships is Wrong. They included corporate owned dealerships.(Mercedes).

I do believe there is enough merit for Tesla. The PC's are being hypocritical in there statements and this will not be accepted in the courts.

My hope is that the courts are going to see that all of these statements from the PC government involve, Dealerships, small business, medium size business, Manufacturers, the big Five companies etc.

The EHVIP was originally set up for the consumer. There is no mention anywhere from the PC's about the consumer. Hopefully the courts see this and side with what the original program was intended for and that is the consumer. Treat all consumers the same.

We'll see, but that is my hope.

 

[Canuck]

My hope is that the courts are going to see that all of these statements from the PC government involve, Dealerships, small business, medium size business, Manufacturers, the big Five companies etc.

Assuming they do, where is a breach of the law? Governments are elected to make these decision and can even make decisions that puts some businesses completely out of business to the benefit of others. It happens a lot. Now, they can't do it with malice or corruption. If you're saying that is present here, good luck proving that in Court. "Intent" is difficult (impossible?) to prove without corroborative evidence. In a case like this, you need something like internal gov't memos containing malice or corruption as the reason, leaked emails, telephone recordings, gov't whistle blowers, witnesses with first hand knowledge, etc. Maybe they are present here but I highly doubt it.

Also, if it doesn't get tossed on a Summary Judgement or Summary Trial basis, it doesn't mean Tesla has a strong case, only that they have a case, and many cases are dismissed at trial that are not dismissed summarily, so I wouldn't read too much into that.

 

[Velianou]

Yakabuski was quoted as

“We extended it to Sept. 10 so that people would have an ample amount of time,” Yakabuski told the Star.

“Tesla does not have a dealer network. They deal directly with the consumer and our intention in extending it for the other models was to protect the dealer networks that provide jobs and work for people here in Ontario.”

This statement clearly shows the decision to extend it for all manufactures except Tesla is contrary to who the program is intended for.

This program is not for the dealerships or the manufacturers but for the consumer. Yakabuski is saying in on breath that this is extended for the people but in another breath its really for the dealerships. There statement to the courts is about the affect on dealerships and manufactures.

Again the EHVIP was intended for the consumer. The exclusion of a specific consumer is the problem. Especially that the vehicle itself is still on the eligible list.

 

[Tony_YYZ]

Assuming they do, where is a breach of the law? Governments are elected to make these decision and can even make decisions that puts some businesses completely out of business to the benefit of others. It happens a lot. Now, they can't do it with malice or corruption. If you're saying that is present here, good luck proving that in Court. "Intent" is difficult (impossible?) to prove without corroborative evidence. In a case like this, you need something like internal gov't memos containing malice or corruption as the reason, leaked emails, telephone recordings, gov't whistle blowers, witnesses with first hand knowledge, etc. Maybe they are present here but I highly doubt it.

Also, if it doesn't get tossed on a Summary Judgement or Summary Trial basis, it doesn't mean Tesla has a strong case, only that they have a case, and many cases are dismissed at trial that are not dismissed summarily, so I wouldn't read too much into that.

Genuine question here, but can't the many negative statements Doug Ford has said on video about Tesla and only Tesla be used as proof that he has a grudge against them as a company and can be seen as him inflicting his personal bias on matters of policy?

 

[pcons]

Tesla should take some responsibility for showcasing the 14K on their site. When I asked my delivery specialist this their response was "its the best car in the World". I couldnt agree more. But, at the time of order why was 14k taken off the price to make my financing look much more attractive.

The way they are acting now should be only if they never showcased the 14k rebate on their site. I'm trying to see if there are any lawyers in here that think we may have a case. I read somewhere about a A class action lawsuit against Tesla by some of the members here. Anyone know?

Dude, you have to read the fine print in the website, which was pretty clear. Looking at things only at the surface and not digging into the details while making a 70k purchase is 1,000,000% buyer beware. No one will touch a class action lawsuit against Tesla. Especially since they were offering a refund. To get a class action you have to show damages. They offer a full refund when they didn't have to. So what are the damages? That you dont have the car? That wont fly....

Also, in the calculator (and still today) it factors in some cost savings vs a gas car based on some assumptions about driving distance per year and price per litre....so are you saying that you also have a right to sue them if that calculation doesn't reflect your exact situation (despite the fact the fine print clearly states the assumptions)?

I get it that losing the rebate sucks and make us all emotional, but think rationally about what you are suggesting and take at least some ownership of your decisions. You have no real damages if they offer a rebate.

 

[felixculpas]

Assuming they do, where is a breach of the law? Governments are elected to make these decision and can even make decisions that puts some businesses completely out of business to the benefit of others. It happens a lot. Now, they can't do it with malice or corruption. If you're saying that is present here, good luck proving that in Court. "Intent" is difficult (impossible?) to prove without corroborative evidence. In a case like this, you need something like internal gov't memos containing malice or corruption as the reason, leaked emails, telephone recordings, gov't whistle blowers, witnesses with first hand knowledge, etc. Maybe they are present here but I highly doubt it.

Also, if it doesn't get tossed on a Summary Judgement or Summary Trial basis, it doesn't mean Tesla has a strong case, only that they have a case, and many cases are dismissed at trial that are not dismissed summarily, so I wouldn't read too much into that.

The intent of the application for Judicial Review is primarily to quash the government's decision to exclude Tesla or alternately, quash the Transition Plan, and to then seek relief in whatever manner the court deems appropriate.

The grounds are just and there is backup evidence should this go to trial.

We have skin in the game and are sometimes prone to saying things in a heated manner. What's your excuse?

 

[pcons]

Genuine question here, but can't the many negative statements Doug Ford has said on video about Tesla and only Tesla be used as proof that he has a grudge against them as a company and can be seen as him inflicting his personal bias on matters of policy?

One would think so. Especially claiming all the stuff about the rebates are for millionaires buying $100,000 cars and that the rebate is $16,000....and on and on.

 

[Jctin]

That comment about millionaires really ticked me off. It shows how much he knows when he said $16K rebates and $100,000 cars. Didn't he not know that the Liberal cancelled the S and X ???