Summary of facts

Le commerçant a intenté un recours contre le consommateur pour le solde contractuel dû à la suite du forage d'un puits artésien à sa résidence. 

Le consommateur conteste ce recours au motif que la facture n'est pas conforme à l'entente. 

Il reproche au commerçant d'avoir continué de creuser jusqu'à 300 pieds, alors que le contrat prévoyait une profondeur maximale de 100 pieds.

Il ajoute que ce forage est inutile puisque son ancien puits, situé à 30 pieds du nouveau, est alimenté par une veine d'eau à moins de 100 pieds de profondeur.

Reasons for the decision

Le commerçant n'a pas eu la conduite qui était attendue de sa part. 

Le contrat ne l'autorisait pas à dépasser la profondeur de 100 pieds sans le consentement du consommateur.

Il n'y a pas de rapport de test de pompage écrit ni de rapport de forage, ce qui aurait permis de donner une estimation de la profondeur des forages réalisés à proximité.

L'imposition de dommages punitifs de 700 $ permettra de sanctionner ce manquement et de dissuader les commerçants dans ce domaine.

Summary of facts

In November 2020, the applicants purchased a swim spa that was supposed to have been delivered to them in the spring of 2021. 

They made a deposit of $9,813, leaving a balance of $20,837, which was payable on delivery. 

Even though the spa had not yet been delivered, the merchant demanded additional amounts due to increased manufacturing and shipping costs. 

The consumers refused and demanded that the contract be honoured. 

The spa was never delivered and the merchant cancelled the contract. 

It raised that its Chinese supplier was experiencing uncontrollable delays in delivering the goods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It argued that it had made several unsuccessful attempts to have the item delivered. 

Reasons for the decision

The consumers were pressured to agree to pay more money and to cancel the contract. 

Such a practice, in crisis situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, must be sanctioned to send a clear message of deterrence.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a used vehicle that stopped working shortly after purchase. 

It had been driven for a little over 2,200 kilometres.

The merchant refused to repair it at its own expense. 

It claimed that the conventional warranty ceased to apply when the vehicle broke down. 

Reasons for the decision

The evidence does not establish that the merchant [translation] “acted intentionally, maliciously, or vexatiously, or that its conduct can be characterized as severe ignorance, carelessness, or neglect, reaching this level of seriousness.”  

Summary of facts

The consumer asked the merchant to make a customized canvas in lieu of a soft top for his dune buggy recreational vehicle. 

He argues that the canvas was not waterproof, was poorly adjusted, and dangerously limited the vehicle’s visibility. 

Reasons for the decision

The canvas could not be used for its intended purpose.

However, the merchant’s blameworthy conduct does not justify awarding punitive damages.

Summary of facts

The consumer did business with a merchant to work on its 
in-ground swimming pool. 

It was dissatisfied with the work and its cost, as the final price was seven times higher than the initial price. 

It claims it was the victim of fraud concerning the cost of the extras. 

Reasons for the decision

The merchant defrauded its client.

It implemented a system of overbilling for the additional work. 

Its shareholder, who participated in the fault and fraud, is also held personally liable. 

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a used vehicle. 

Approximately two years after the purchase, she discovered that the vehicle was involved in an accident. 

She would not have purchased the vehicle if she had been informed of its true condition.

The merchant admits that its salesperson failed to disclose the information in the Carfax report, which was on file, i.e., the damage suffered by the vehicle before the sale. 

Reasons for the decision

To protect its sale and ensure the sale would go through without any problems, the merchant deliberately failed to disclose a very important fact.

Such a practice must be discouraged.

Summary of facts

The consumer adopted a dog from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). 

The very next day after taking possession, the animal presented major signs of lethargy and was suffering from hemorrhagic diarrhea.

A veterinarian diagnosed the dog with a highly infectious disease, Canine parvovirus.

Reasons for the decision

The SPCA deliberately failed to disclose highly relevant information about the foreseeable state of the animal’s health to the consumer. 

This is a major fault. 

Summary of facts

The consumer entered into a contract with a merchant to provide Internet services. 

He received an introductory offer at a monthly fixed price of $25, for life.

However, the price of his plan increased when he renewed the contract. 

The consumer alleges that the merchant used inaccurate advertising and failed to honour the undertaking made. 

Reasons for the decision

Awarding punitive damages seeks to dissuade merchants from breaching the law or deliberately engaging in a prohibited practice.

There is no excuse for the merchant’s conduct. 

The amount claimed in punitive damages by the consumer is neither exaggerated nor inappropriate. 

Summary of facts

In 2018, the consumer purchased a Nissan electric vehicle made in the United States. 

In 2021, the brake system proved to be defective. 

The consumer discovered that his vehicle had been subject to a recall by Transport Canada since 2016. A second recall was published in 2019. 

Nissan Canada initially offered to pay half the costs of repair, but the consumer considered this solution to be unacceptable. 

The offer was increased to 100% a few months later. It also covered the reimbursement of the consumer’s legal costs. 

The consumer alleges that Nissan Canada failed to inform Canadians purchasing American vehicles of the major brake problem. 

Reasons for the decision

Nissan Canada sought solutions quite quickly.

Its reaction was not fast enough for the consumer, but it does not justify awarding punitive damages. 

This is not an action against a dealer that sold a vehicle directly to the consumer while failing to disclose important information. 

Instead, this is an action against a national brand that attempted, as best as possible and with a little delay, to resolve the problem by offering a solution that the consumer considered to be unsatisfactory. 

Summary of facts

The consumer retained FedEx to send a pair of high-end speakers to the manufacturer for repair.  

He declared that the goods are valued at approximately US$2,000. 

The goods were delivered to the manufacturer but damage was observed in several places. 

Reasons for the decision

By approaching a specialized shipping company, the consumer expected quality, worry-free service. 

Although the client emphasized the value of the goods being shipped and the importance of packing them properly, the merchant failed to act prudently and diligently.

Communication with the consumer was inadequate and complicated. 

The situation caused the consumer anxiety.

However, the evidence is inconclusive with regard to abuse or repeated conduct on the part of the merchant. 

Given the merchant’s careless or negligent conduct, it is reasonable and justified to award a lump sum of $600 in punitive and moral damages. 

This amount is sufficient to fulfil the preventive purpose of punitive damages.