Summary of facts

The consumer took his car to a merchant for repairs.

Dissatisfied with the explanations given about the repairs and the hours billed, he alleged that the merchant breached the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant did not provide any prior written estimate of the work it planned to do. It did not inform the consumer of the nature and total cost of the proposed repairs.

The bill sent following the repairs did not include the basic information required by section 173 of the Act.

The merchant did not perform its obligations diligently.

It is unacceptable for a body shop preparing to repair a car not to provide the consumer with a written estimate before doing the work.

Summary of facts

The consumer gave a merchant $2,000 as a deposit for work the merchant never performed.

Despite numerous requests and formal letters from the consumer, the merchant never went to her home to perform the work specified in the contract.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant ignored all of the protections granted to consumers under the Consumer Protection Act with regard to an itinerant merchant.

He deliberately took the consumer’s money. He knew that she had limited financial resources and had to use her line of credit to finance the construction of her pergola.

He used the same strategy on at least three occasions with three different women. He signed contracts, received deposits, and made multiple excuses to justify his unavailability to never carry out the work or refund the deposits.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a Ford Fusion automobile from a dealer. Three years later, when the automobile had over 75,000 kilometres on the odometer, the dealer refused to perform necessary repairs to the steering rack.

Reasons for the decision

A good forming the object of a consumer contract must be fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used for a reasonable period of time.

The dealer itself admits that the steering rack should have lasted at least 150,000 kilometres.

Punitive damages are justified due to the dealer’s conduct in respect of the durability warranty.

The dealer’s letter in reply to the consumer’s formal notice demonstrates its refusal to accept responsibility for its obligations.

The dealer incorrectly argues that it received no formal notice, when it was first given an opportunity to perform the repairs.

It also attempted to argue that the manufacturer and the other dealer that performed the repairs are potentially liable, whereas the law expressly provides that the consumer is entitled to exercise a recourse directly against the merchant who sold the vehicle.

Last, by announcing that it would vigorously contest the consumer’s action, the dealer was attempting to discourage the consumer from exercising his rights, and such conduct must be punished.

Summary of facts

The plaintiff was the victim of identity theft and bank fraud by a third party.

Because a balance of over $2,600 in the fraudulent account remained unpaid, the financial institution hired a collections agency to recover the amount owing, even though the plaintiff told it that it did not have an account with the bank.

The plaintiff therefore received several calls from the agency, including some automated calls, even after telling it that he had been the victim of fraud.

Reasons for the decision

The financial institution has not implemented appropriate identification verification measures for anyone wishing to open a bank account online.

Furthermore, even after the plaintiff informed it that he had never opened an account at any of its branches and the bank could see that the address and telephone number in its files were incorrect, the financial institution nevertheless hired a collections agency to try to recover the balance of a loan that the plaintiff had never taken out.

In so doing, it committed a fault against the plaintiff.

The collections agency also committed a fault by failing to act prudently and diligently and by using practices prohibited by the Act respecting the collection of certain debts.

It continued to call the plaintiff several times, sometimes using call automation, after the plaintiff told it that he had never opened an account with the financial institution. The plaintiff could have considered the content of these calls to be harassing or intimidating.

Moreover, the agency waited 12 days after being informed by the plaintiff that he had been the victim of fraud to send a request to the financial institution to verify the plaintiff’s claims.

Punitive damages are therefore justified to denounce the faults committed by the financial institution and the collections agency and to prevent their repetition.

Summary of facts

In 2015, the consumer exchanged his 2011 vehicle for a demonstrator with 7,000 kilometres.

However, he later discovered that he had paid a higher price than the manufacturer's suggested retail price.

He felt that he paid too much compared to the vehicle's actual value, especially since it was a used vehicle.

The merchant refused to reimburse him for the amount overpaid on the purchase price.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant violated the Consumer Protection Act because no label was affixed on the used vehicle when it was purchased by the consumer.

Section 155 of the Act has been in force since June 30, 1992. It is unacceptable that a company like the merchant's does not ensure that its employees have the knowledge required to correctly apply the provisions of the Act.

This ignorance must be sanctioned.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a vehicle from a dealer. The sales contract indicated that it was a new vehicle.

A few days after the purchase, however, when the consumer went to the dealer to take possession of the vehicle, he realized that the sales contract had been signed on a different form, which stated that it was a demonstrator with 705 kilometres on the odometer.

The instalment sale contract signed at the same time indicated that it was a new vehicle with 20 kilometres.

The documents were signed without the consumer noticing this contradiction.

It was only later that he realized that he had purchased a demonstrator.

Reasons for the decision

The dealer's actions justify an award of punitive damages.

In full knowledge of the facts, it misled the consumer and sold him a vehicle that was not new.

Summary of facts

Drawn by an advertisement on the travel agency's website, each consumer purchased a one-week travel package to Cuba. The trip was scheduled for January 31 to February 7, 2018.

The advertisement offered a complimentary upgrade valued at $409 to a room with “premium ocean view” when booking a “deluxe” room within the period stipulated in the advertisement.

However, the travel agency and the wholesaler refused to honour the advertisement because the trip was supposed to end by January 31, 2018, for the promotion to apply.

Reasons for the decision

The advertisement that drew the consumers did not comply with the Consumer Protection Act. This practice must be discouraged.

In the computer age, print ads on travel wholesalers’ websites are a prime way to capture the attention of travellers in a highly competitive field.

These ads must be attractive and promising to retain travellers.

However, their message must be consistent with the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act. It must be precise, complete, and not open to interpretation.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a used vehicle.

The merchant gave him a mechanical inspection sheet, a CarProof report, and the registration papers. However, the vehicle’s label was not appended to the sales contract and no label number appeared.

The consumer noted that the Carproof report did not match the vehicle’s serial number or that of another vehicle. He had the car inspected and several defects were discovered. He then obtained a Carproof report indicating that the vehicle had been in an accident. The merchant refused to take it back or to repair it.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant breached its obligation under section 157 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The vehicle’s label was not appended to the sales contract.

The CarProof report given to the buyer was erroneous. It made no mention of any accident, which falsely reassured the consumer. An important fact was withheld.

Summary of facts

After a short telephone conversation, the consumer gave the merchant the mandate to move his pool. He had seen an advertisement posted on the Marketplace classified ad website.

A verbal contract was entered into and the price agreed upon was paid in full.

The pool was dismantled and reinstalled at the consumer's new residence, but it was never functional. The consumer had to dismantle and get rid of the pool.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant's advertisement was false, untruthful, and misleading. The entity mentioned in the advertisement does not exist. In addition, the advertisement falsely claimed that the merchant had teams of professionals at his disposal and over 15 years’ experience in pool installation.

The advertisement gave the consumer the false impression that he was dealing with a recognized company with sufficient expertise and resources to carry out the contract.

The merchant's work was useless. His incompetence and poor workmanship made the pool unsalvageable.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a vehicle advertised as new by the merchant. However, the vehicle had previously been sold to someone else a few months earlier. It had been registered, put into service, and repaired twice before the merchant took it back and sold it to the consumer.

She refused the extended warranty offered by the merchant or to exchange her vehicle for a new one. She maintained that she was entitled to monetary compensation.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant made false or misleading statements. It concealed important facts and wrote in the contract that the vehicle had been driven 10 kilometres when in fact it was over 500 kilometres.

The consumer was awarded $1,000 to take into account the merchant’s disregard for its legal obligations and the message of deterrence that must prevail in such circumstances.