Just some interesting information I found on the MTO website: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/vehicles/vehicle-branding-program.shtml
As above, it would seem to me that the duty to report the damage fell on Murchie when it was damaged under his ownership. If he was truly concerned about the motorcycle later being sold without the damage being disclosed, then he should have disclosed the damage to the MTO.
Since he did not report this damage to the MTO, one can then presume that he does not care if subsequent owners are aware of this bike's history. If that is the case, then what is this thread about? Murchie, you claim it is all about preventing a bike being sold without the history disclosed; so why, then, didn't you report the damage?[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
Not totally sure the OP would have to make that declaration, would be nice to get that clarified. It seems plausible for the OP to brand it if it was being sold as a running, presumed to be re used vehicle, but selling to a shop for parts, after they have inspected it, pretty much implies that it will be parted out and not re licensed. I'm quite certain that if it was dropped off at a wrecker the same implication would apply, and they are the ones who would retain the title anyway.
Incidentally, and no I don't have a horse in this race, but based on the curb-siding laws in addition to the ones quoted above, I would seriously be worried about my OMVIC compliance if I were this shop. Technically, he would have been required to transfer the ownership to his shop before re-selling (tax laws, UVIP history), in addition to the declaration of a frame swap. But take all that with a grain of salt; I have no indication that this is even the same bike other than what the OP has posted, nor do I want to point a finger at this shop without full facts. Merely observations here.
Last edited: