Summary of facts

In May 2020, the consumer purchased a television online that turned out to be defective. 

He had to take multiple steps to return the television, and his request was ultimately rejected on the basis that too much time had elapsed since the purchase. 

Reasons for the decision

The special context in which the events took place, namely the COVID-19 pandemic, could partly explain the company’s disorganization. 

However, this cannot entirely justify the almost complete lack of customer service when the merchant was nonetheless able to provide retail services.

The $500 awarded is necessary to fulfil the preventive purpose of punitive damages. 

Summary of facts

The consumers entered into a contract with an itinerant merchant to insulate their home’s attic and install a new heating system. 

They allege that the merchant failed to carry out the insulation work in accordance with the terms of the agreement. 

The heating system installed also fails to meet the legitimate expectations created by promises of energy savings.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant committed a serious fault. 

It made false or misleading representations by promising energy savings that were not realized.

Its conduct is akin to recklessness or gross negligence. 

The remedy granted to the consumers (cancellation of the contract, restitution by equivalence of prestations valued at $12,329 , and indemnity of $3,000 in compensatory damages) is not enough to prevent its reoccurrence or dissuade the merchant.

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 consumers purchased a puppy with hereditary hip dysplasia from a breeder. 

The animal had to undergo major surgery.

Reasons for the decision

The dog had a latent defect at the time of purchase. 

The merchant also breached its obligation to confirm the animal’s registration with the Canadian Kennel Club. This registration can provide some assurance about the genetic quality of the lineage. 

The merchant must be held liable for the damages suffered by the consumers. 

The evidence does not support the conclusion that its conduct was marked by carelessness, ignorance, or negligence so serious that it would justify an award of punitive damages.

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 the merchant. 

Several issues occurred a few days after taking possession of the vehicle. 

The heating system and the Bluetooth system stopped working, the car would not start, and the steering wheel would suddenly get stuck while driving. 

Reasons for the decision

The merchant cooperated to implement the legal warranty. 

It also took care of some of the repairs to the vehicle. 

There is no reason to condemn it to pay punitive damages. 

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.