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.

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.