Go Auto Haus — Consumer Fraud Documentation
660 Pembina Hwy, Winnipeg, MB · Case filed with Manitoba CPO · Ombudsman referral active
Summary
In September 2025, a 2019 Volkswagen Jetta was purchased from Go Auto Haus, 660 Pembina Hwy, Winnipeg. The vehicle had pre-existing electrical and mechanical failures documented in the ODIS diagnostic system as far back as May 31, 2025, with primary fault events on July 18, 2025 — two months before the sale. OBD2 forensic telemetry confirms fault codes were deliberately cleared before the sale to conceal this history.
The dealership's own manager, Lucas, confirmed the pre-sale fault dates on a recorded phone call while performing a real-time review of the ODIS report. His response upon discovering the faults predate the sale by months: "Yeah, it's certainly possible. Right. I mean, that's unfortunate."
A complaint was filed with the Manitoba Consumer Protection Office (CPO). The CPO's March 2026 determination contains a demonstrable technical error. The case has been escalated to the Manitoba Ombudsman.
Documented Timeline
Manager Admission — Recorded Phone Call
Go Auto Haus Manager "Lucas" — Phone Call Transcript (Excerpt)
During a recorded call, the consumer presented the ODIS fault dates directly to the manager. The following exchange occurred when confronting Lucas with evidence that the primary fault occurred July 18, 2025 — two months before the sale.
"So like there's just a whole bunch of things here where you guys are trying to claim negligence — or like you're trying to claim that you didn't know that the fault was happening — when the fault occurred July 18th, 2025 at like 7:47 p.m. or whatever, with 135 occurrences on the ECU. That's what the ODIS report says. The main damage being repaired was back in July 18th, 2025. And the first sign of failure on the ECU says May 31st."
— Tyler Johnston-Kent (consumer) presenting ODIS evidence to Lucas · Timestamp ~10:44–11:11"Yeah, it's certainly possible. Right. I mean, that's unfortunate."
— Lucas, Go Auto Haus manager · Timestamp ~11:40 · Response upon being presented with pre-sale fault datesWhy this matters
When a manager of the selling dealership — with access to the ODIS report and shop records — responds to evidence of a July 18 fault with "Yeah, it's certainly possible. Right. I mean, that's unfortunate," that is an on-record acknowledgment that the vehicle was sold with a pre-existing fault. It is not a denial. It is not a dispute of the dates. It is acceptance of the possibility that the car was sold in that condition.
On Recording
When informed the call was being recorded, the manager expressed disdain: "I don't recall giving you that to record this conversation." The consumer correctly cited one-party consent law (federal), under which only one party to a conversation needs to consent to recording. The recording was made for the explicit purpose of this consumer protection case.
CPO Handling — Officers Claiming Ignorance While Making Legally Binding Decisions
Officers Assigned to This Case
The following Consumer Protection Office staff handled CPO Case #24691 and issued the determinations documented on this page.
Phone: 204-945-3800 · Toll-free (MB): 1-800-782-0067 · Fax: 204-945-0728
[email protected] · manitoba.ca/consumerprotection
The Core Problem
Bibiana Bernal Cuellar authored the March 17, 2026 determination letter — a legally binding government decision closing the consumer's case. In that same letter, she explicitly states the CPO "does not possess technical expertise in specific fields or industries."
This is not a minor caveat. She applied that admitted lack of expertise to evaluate factory ODIS diagnostic data — a specialized automotive system that requires trained interpretation — and issued a conclusion that is factually wrong as a result. A non-expert made a technical determination, got it wrong, and used that wrong determination to dismiss a documented consumer fraud case. That is the institutional failure at the centre of this matter.
Bibiana Bernal Cuellar — Professional Background
Bibiana Bernal Cuellar is a business lawyer. This is not a case of an untrained officer making an honest mistake. Every action documented below reflects a deliberate legal strategy, not negligence. Lawyers operating in government administrative roles are held to a professional standard of conduct. The pattern of her handling of this case raises serious concerns about that standard.
"I love researching and solving problems related to ways to make businesses productive without unacknowledging consumers' rights to use products that do not jeopardize their health and safety."
A vehicle with an active turbo coolant pump failure reaching 210°F post-drive is a documented health and safety risk. She dismissed the evidence of exactly that.
"Beware of online stores using deceptive images... A flashy photo doesn't always mean a trustworthy seller."
She publicly posted consumer protection content about deceptive sellers while simultaneously dismissing a documented case of a deceptive vehicle sale with concealed pre-existing faults. She has been a Consumer Services Officer since March 2025 — this case is among her earliest in the role.
"The errors reported in the ODIS document in November 2025... do not reasonably demonstrate a failure in the vehicle before September 17, 2025."
— Bibiana Bernal Cuellar, CPO Case #24691, March 17, 2026
ODIS reads fault records stored in ECU non-volatile memory. The November 2025 scan date is when the data was read — not when the faults occurred. The ECU timestamps faults at the time they happen: May 31, 2025 and July 18, 2025 — both before the September sale. The CPO conflated scan date with fault date. These are not the same thing.