Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a Ford pickup truck from the defendant dealer.

Because the model requested was not in stock, the dealer signed the sale contract after finding the model at another dealer. However, the transfer between the dealers did not take place, and the pickup ended up being sold to a third person.

Because the dealer could not deliver the pickup it sold to the consumer, it cancelled the sale.

Reasons for the decision

The dealer could not unilaterally terminate the contract. Only the consumer could request cancellation of the sale.

Because the dealer breached its obligation to deliver the pickup sold, it committed a fault rendering it liable for the harm caused to the consumer.

Punitive damages are justified, given the dealer’s serious recklessness.

First, it was careless in agreeing to sell a vehicle after merely confirming that it was available from a competing dealer, knowing that the other dealer had no obligation to transfer ownership to it.

Second, it had a duty to inform the consumer of the inherent risk associated with the sale.

Third, a significant amount of time elapsed between the moment the dealer learned it could not deliver the vehicle sold and the moment it informed the consumer. During that entire period, it hid the truth, saying that the pickup had been lost but that verifications were being done, even though it knew it would never receive the vehicle from the other dealer.

Fourth, the replacements the dealer proposed establish that it did not agree to compensate the consumer for the additional financing costs for another pickup, which would have been legitimate in the circumstances.

Fifth, the dealer’s business practice was reprehensible and should be denounced and punished to prevent such conduct in the future.

Summary of facts

The consumer had trouble recharging the battery of his laptop computer four years after purchasing it.

The battery indicated 72% capacity after 255 charge cycles, which did not correspond to the manufacturer’s representations in its advertising.

Reasons for the decision

The consumer’s expectations are justified by the manufacturer’s representations. The manufacturer stated that this type of battery was designed to preserve 80% of its capacity after 1,000 charge cycles. These representations do not correspond to the actual usefulness of the battery at issue, which suffers from a loss of use resulting from a latent defect.

The latent defect entitles the consumer to a reduction in the sale price.

The consumer is not entitled to punitive damages, however, because there was no misleading or unfair practice, no intentional or malicious violation, and no conduct displaying ignorance, carelessness, or serious negligence on the part of the manufacturer with respect to its obligations and consumers’ rights.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a used vehicle from a dealer.

The advertised sale price was $16,995 plus tax.

However, the total amount on the sale contract and the instalment sale contract was $24,291.

Reasons for the decision

The final price of the vehicle included administrative fees and Carproof fees charged by the dealer.

The dealer’s vehicle information sheet did not mention these fees. The dealer did not inform the consumer before the signing of the contract that additional fees would be added to the advertised price.

The amounts at issue were added to the cost of the vehicle only after the consumer decided to make the purchase.

The same is true for the administrative fees charged by the bank, which were never discussed with the dealer. All the documentation signed at the time of the sale was prepared by the dealer and signed hastily, with no explanations provided to the consumer.

The addition of these fees to the vehicle’s sale price is therefore contrary to the Consumer Protection Act.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased an electric boiler to replace the old fossil fuel heating system in his home.

The plumbing company he hired to install it offered to help him get a grant under the Chauffez vert program.

The invoice included a $250 charge for “design fees” covering services for the Chauffez vert program, whereas the consumer asserts that he never consented to the company billing him for any such services.

The consumer did not obtain the grant because the condition to register with the program before the work was done was not fulfilled.

Reasons for the decision

The charge for “design fees” when the company did not have to do any such work constitutes a false representation under section 219 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The fact that the company “invented a story so that it would be left alone” instead of telling the consumer the truth about the grant procedure was also a misleading representation.

The punitive damages awarded are to punish for the false charge in the invoice and the misleading representations to prevent this from happening again.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a mare for her daughter from the merchant, a horse-breeding company.

After the sale, the consumer noticed that the mare was making strange movements. Claiming that the animal had headshaking syndrome, she invokes the legal warranty of quality. In her opinion, the mare cannot be used for its intended purpose, namely, to take part in amateur equestrian competitions.

Reasons for the decision

The mare’s condition caused by the hypersensitivity of its trigeminal nerve prevents it from taking part in competitions and affects the ability of the consumer’s daughter to mount her safely.

In the circumstances, punitive damages should be awarded, given their preventive function. In this case, the Consumer Protection Act’s objective to ensure consumer satisfaction regarding the intended use and durability of the goods sold was thwarted by the merchant’s categorical and constant refusal to acknowledge the mare’s condition and its effect on the intended use by the consumer and her daughter.

Summary of facts

The consumer had subscribed to the merchant's remote monitoring service for several years.

He contacted a representative of the merchant to cancel his subscription.

Since he did not receive any written confirmation of his request, he reiterated his desire to terminate the contractual agreement, but received no reply.

Although it had stopped providing services, the merchant continued to bill the consumer for several months.

Collection proceedings were also instituted.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant was negligent.

Even after receiving two calls and a formal notice, it continued to bill the consumer for the services for several months and sent him collection notices without offering any services in return.

It breached its obligations and allowed unfounded collection proceedings to continue without valid reason and in violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a mattress, a box spring, and a mattress protector from the merchant for a total of $1,525.

She was disappointed with the quality of the mattress, which was not the one she had chosen, and she observed that the warranty card and the complete label were missing and that the box spring was defective. She therefore asked the merchant to take back the goods and reimburse her for the total cost.

The merchant initially refused her request because the mattress protector could not be returned under the sale contract between the parties. At trial, it agreed to take back the mattress and box spring but not the mattress protector and to reimburse $1,813 to the consumer.

Reasons for the decision

First, the clause in the invoice stating no exchange or reimbursement for the mattress protector is clear.

The amount the consumer claims in punitive damages should not be awarded. A breach of an obligation under the Consumer Protection Act does not necessarily justify punitive damages.

In this case, despite its breaches, the merchant acted quickly and responsibly, in accordance with the consumer’s legitimate expectations.

In addition, there is no evidence that the merchant acted intentionally, maliciously, or vexatiously or that its conduct was reprehensible.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a Hyundai automobile from a dealer.

She submits that the contract contains several errors and that accessories and warranties she did not request were added without her consent.

Reasons for the decision

The dealer committed several violations of the Consumer Protection Act.

However, the various breaches do not justify punitive damages in addition to the amounts awarded as a reduction in the sale price and moral damages.

The consumer’s claim that these damages should be awarded because the dealer refused to correct the contract and negotiate a solution when she informed him of the problems is not sufficient in this case.

Summary of facts

The consumers purchased a trip organized in Italy from a travel agency.

In its advertisement, the agency promised to take care of everything, to provide the travellers with peace of mind, and to give them advice and the assurance of complete relaxation.

During their trip, the consumers were the victims of pickpocketing.

They informed the travel agent accompanying them on the trip that they suspected that a local tour guide who had been hired by the travel agency was responsible for the theft.

They criticized the lack of advice and support from the agent.

Reasons for the decision

The travel agency did not provide the consumers with the assistance and peace of mind it promised in its advertisement.

It had an obligation to inform the consumers of the services available locally when such incidents occur, especially during an organized trip.

Summary of facts

The consumer hired a contractor to carry out landscaping work on her property.

However, the agreed-upon deadline was not met.

Exasperated by the slow pace of the work, which was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, labour problems, and the shortage of materials, the consumer shared her grievances with the contractor.

It proposed a new deadline and a price adjustment but ended up cancelling the contract. It reimbursed the consumer only for the value of the work it claimed had not been completed.

Reasons for the decision

The contractor unilaterally amended the terms of the contract on several occasions, thereby breaching section 11.2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The contractor also falsely claimed in its notice of cancellation that it had assigned many employees to meet the consumer’s needs. It also ignored the consumer's complaints.