Summary of facts

The consumers purchased a travel package for Cuba.

Upon arrival, they were directed to a different hotel because the one they had reserved was closed for renovations.

However, this situation existed when the package was sold and the agency and the wholesaler knew or should have known about it.

The new hotel offered fewer services and had no beachfront.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant breached its obligations towards the consumers by selling them accommodation in a hotel that was closed, knowing in advance that it could not provide this service.

This situation must be condemned.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased two heat pumps from the merchant. One of them did not work properly and required regular de-icing.

He complained to the merchant, who agreed to reimburse two invoices for heating oil that had to be purchased in the middle of winter because of the defective heat pump. The merchant also agreed to make the corrections in the spring.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant breached its obligations when installing one of the appliances. Furthermore, when the time came to make the corrections, it refused to do so, demanding a release that it was not entitled to receive. The consumer had absolutely no obligation to agree to such a transaction, which would have relieved the merchant from some of its obligations.

This conduct is contrary to the Act and the undertakings made, and it raises doubts about the merchant’s good faith. Punitive damages should therefore be awarded to condemn a blameworthy way of doing business.

Summary of facts

The consumer gave his computer to a merchant to replace the hard drive. When he picked up his computer, he saw a sign offering a monthly support service. He subscribed to the service because his hard drive would be replaced for free.

Dissatisfied with the merchant’s data transfer, the consumer cancelled his subscription.  After receiving his notice of cancellation, the merchant debited five monthly payments.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant collected charges from the consumer even though it was prohibited by the Consumer Protection Act. Debiting five monthly payments for services not rendered is a prohibited business practice.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a GMC vehicle from the merchant. After using it for seven months, her mechanic informed her that the frame was completely rusted and perforated, rendering the vehicle dangerous and unfit to drive on Quebec roads because of an imminent risk of accident.

Reasons for the decision

The consumer has established that, at the time of the purchase, the frame of the vehicle had hidden defects that had been disguised to obtain the required certificate of mechanical inspection from the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec.

The merchant should have carefully examined the vehicle before selling it to the consumer.

Because the merchant breached its duty to determine the actual state of the vehicle before selling it, failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge of the defect, and contravened the Consumer Protection Act, punitive damages should be awarded to deter the merchant from making another hasty sale without actually examining the vehicle.

Summary of facts

The consumer entered into a contract for the purchase and installation of a wall-mounted heat recovery unit. She was told that her electricity bill would be reduced by $22 or $23 a month due to the efficiency of the solar panel, which was not the case.

Reasons for the decision

False and fraudulent representations were made to the consumer about the actual energy savings that could be generated by the units sold.

Several consumers encountered the same problems after purchasing similar solar panels. This is an ongoing scam.

Summary of facts

The consumers entered into a childcare services contract with a home daycare.

Following an incident, the merchant terminated the agreement by sending the consumers a notice of cancellation that took effect the same day.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant had no serious reason for terminating the childcare services contract without notice. The safety of the merchant or of the children was not at risk.

She did not act in bad faith but made a hasty decision because of her inexperience and emotional state.

She must have known that her actions would have serious consequences for her clients and their children.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a luxury vehicle from a merchant whose navigation system is defective. The voice system is incomprehensible and unintelligible when it pronounces the names of certain streets and their numbers.

According to the merchant, the consumer need only look at the dashboard to read the names of the streets and routes displayed to see them properly.

The consumer believes that this creates a safety issue because he has to look at the vehicle's screen while driving.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant's suggestion is not only dangerous to the safety of the consumer, passengers, and other road users, but is also ridiculous. It demonstrates a total lack of professionalism.

The merchant’s conduct was unacceptable. It was negligent and reckless with regard to the rights of its client, who is entitled to expect his vehicle to function properly.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a television from a merchant and had it delivered to her home. At the time of delivery, the delivery person refused to help her open the box to check the merchandise. He claimed that he did not speak French.

Being alone and elderly, the consumer had to wait several days before her nephew came to her home to install the television.

When the consumer opened the box, the screen was cracked and damaged.

The merchant refused to replace the television because it was not returned within 48 hours of delivery, as required by its return policy.

Reasons for the decision

If the delivery person had agreed to help the consumer take the television out of the box and examine it, he would have noticed the damage.

The merchant's conduct was vexatious, negligent, and reckless towards the consumer.

It acted in bad faith by arguing that the period to return the damaged merchandise had expired. It had not because the consumer had opened the box the day before.

Summary of facts

The consumer entered into a contract for the purchase and installation of a heat pump.

She claimed she was misled about the price of the unit, which was never installed despite her repeated calls.

In addition, the heat pump did not perform as expected. It was not durable in normal use for a reasonable length of time.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant breached many of its obligations.

It was clearly reckless and seriously negligent in failing to complete the installation of the heat pump despite repeated calls from its client for 10 months.

Before completing the installation, the merchant demanded that its client withdraw her complaint filed with the Office de la protection du consommateur. Such conduct is reprehensible and must be condemned.

Summary of facts

The consumer, who was 87 years old at the time, wanted to purchase an air conditioning system to cool down his home in the summer. His residence was heated by an oil system.

The defendant’s representatives went to the consumer’s home to sell him an aerothermal heat recovery unit.  The consumer purchased a unit for $10,000 plus tax.

His children later told him that this unit did not meet his needs and that he had paid too much for it.

Reasons for the decision

There was subjective lesion within the meaning of section 8 of the Consumer Protection Act because the obligation of the consumer was excessive, harsh, or unconscionable.

He paid $7,594 more for his unit compared to an equivalent unit.

The consumer, who had been living in his home for 50 years, had never felt the need for a heat pump.

He had also told the merchant’s representative that he only needed a unit to cool his home on hots days, not another heating system.