Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a used vehicle from a merchant. The vehicle was sold with the firm representation to the consumer that it had been inspected and repaired. However, several issues were noticed after the sale.

Reasons for the decision

The consumer never signed or received the written contract that is required for the sale of a used vehicle.

The goods sold also does not conform to the many statements made that it was in good working order.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a vehicle from the dealer that he thought was new. Instead, it was a used vehicle that had served as a test vehicle and had already been driven 1,054 kilometres.

The manufacturer’s label on the vehicle did not indicate that it was a used vehicle. It also did not indicate the correct sales price.

In addition, the automobile was in a section of the showroom reserved for the liquidation of new vehicles.

The dealer’s online ad also suggested that it was a new vehicle.

Reasons for the decision

The dealer breached the Consumer Protection Act by falsely claiming that it was a new vehicle.

It committed a serious fault by repeatedly selling vehicles used for customer test drives as if they were new vehicles and by denying that they were “demonstrators”. 

This illegal, misleading, repeated, and highly reprehensible practice must be severely sanctioned.

Summary of facts

Les consommateurs ont acheté un forfait de voyage d’une durée de 11 jours à Cuba. Il s’agissait pour eux d’un voyage de noces.

L’hôtel choisi était classé dans la catégorie «4 étoiles et demie» sur le site Internet du grossiste en voyages.

Or, la chambre qui leur a été offerte était située dans une villa où séjournaient également des employés de l’hôtel.

La chambre d’hôtel était aussi malpropre et la nourriture était en quantité insuffisante.

Reasons for the decision

The wholesaler did not fulfill its basic obligations.

Although some effort was made to satisfy its clients, to no avail, exemplary damages must be awarded to ensure that it pays closer attention to the quality of the hotels where it sends clients.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a used Lexus sports car.

According to the merchant’s online ad, the vehicle was in perfect condition and had been owned by only one person.

It was discovered that the car had been owned by four successive dealers who used it for test drives, as a replacement vehicle, or for the personal use of an employee or a dealership owner.

Reasons for the decision

A trusting and inexperienced consumer is justified in believing that an advertisement that states that a vehicle has had only one owner means that only one person has owned the vehicle.

The merchant’s advertisement therefore contained false and misleading information.

Failure to disclose to consumers that the vehicle has been modified is an omission of important facts.

The vehicle was not in perfect condition as it had brake and fender problems. The paint and rear-view mirror were also damaged.

The vehicle was also recalled due to a faulty fuel pump.

Summary of facts

The consumer’s motorcycle had mechanical issues and she went to a garage for the necessary repairs.

The garage erred in its diagnosis and invoiced for work that the consumer claims was not done.

Reasons for the decision

A garage has an obligation of result towards its client: it is not sufficient to repair the vehicle entrusted to it; it must obtain the expected result.

In this case, the garage did not fulfill this duty when it failed at the outset to identify the cause of the mechanical issue preventing the consumer from using her motorcycle. Its diagnosis was wrong, and this constitutes a fault. The garage also committed another fault when it invoiced the consumer for the cost of replacing an air filter, when this was not done.

Therefore, punitive damages are justified because the garage acted recklessly. This condemnation is also intended to deter the faulty party and third parties from repeating such conduct.

Summary of facts

While he was driving, the consumer’s Mazda stopped because of a defect in the right-side electronic blind spot monitor.

He argues that a defect in the car’s accessory system, such as the blind-spot monitoring system, should not prevent the car from working.

Reasons for the decision

An “average consumer” who purchases a car equipped with blind-spot monitors may reasonably expect that a defect in that feature will not cause the car to stop completely. The manufacturer had an obligation to inform the consumer of the risk he was taking if one of the monitors suddenly stopped working. The consumer is thus able to establish a loss of use.

However, this breach does not justify punitive damages in addition to the $1,000 awarded in compensation.

The evidence does not establish that the manufacturer knowingly connected accessory components like its blind-spot monitors to other components that are essential for the car to work, to force consumers to pay for expensive repairs so that they can use the car normally again.

Summary of facts

The consumers purchased a new vehicle from the dealer. The representative told them that the odometer indicated 700 kilometres because the vehicle had been delivered to Saint-Basile-le-Grand from a dealership in Val-d’Or.

However, after checking the vehicle’s usage data in the on-board computer, the consumers found out that the car had been driven 27 times before being delivered to the merchant.

The consumers also had to pay $2,966 more than the agreed price to purchase the vehicle.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant committed a serious and intentional fault by repeatedly selling vehicles used for customer test drives as if they were new vehicles and by denying that they were “demonstrators”.

It used an unfair tactic with consumers to justify a relatively high mileage for a supposedly new vehicle.

The automobile, which had been used for customer test drives at the dealership before its sale, was a used car, not a new vehicle.

In addition, the dealer could not unilaterally change the price agreed upon with the consumers. This is a prohibited pricing practice.

Summary of facts

The consumer entered into a contract with an itinerant merchant for the purchase and installation of two heat pump systems.

The merchant did not install the equipment promised in the sales contract, but another brand of heat pumps, which were not functional.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant did not provide the consumer with the goods sold in accordance with the contract.

It also misled the client as to the nature of the equipment delivered, in addition to offering a very poor after-sales service. This conduct must be condemned.

Summary of facts

When leaving the car dealership behind the wheel of his new car, the consumer noticed that the odometer indicated 23 kilometres. However, when he registered the vehicle, he was surprised to learn that it had previously been registered.

He subsequently discovered that the contract, which he had not read, indicated 420 kilometres and that it was a test vehicle.

The dealer claimed that the car actually was new at the time of the sale.

To achieve its sales targets, however, the dealer had recorded the car as a test vehicle. The reference to the kilometrage in the sale contract was therefore entered mechanically or arbitrarily.

Reasons for the decision

The dealer’s business practice raises several questions, especially since he never told the consumer how he had recorded the vehicle internally.

However, in this situation, the vehicle sold as new was not actually a used or damaged car, for example, or one where the kilometrage indicated in the contract was lower than it was in reality. In this case, the car sold really was a new vehicle.

Moreover, the consumer was negligent by failing to read the contract.

Punitive damages should not be awarded inasmuch as the seriousness of the actions alleged against the dealer is in the final analysis relative and is primarily due to an overly hasty administrative decision rather than an intention to mislead the consumer.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a used vehicle from the merchant.

Six years later, when she traded in the car to a different dealer, she learned that the vehicle had been in an accident.

Yet she had specifically asked whether the car had been in an accident when she negotiated the purchase of her vehicle. The vendor had replied that it had not.

Reasons for the decision

As a professional vendor, the merchant knew or should have known the condition of the vehicle it was selling.

Failure to disclose the fact that the vehicle had been in an accident constituted fraud.

The vendor committed a serious fault by lying to the consumer. This is an intentional breach of its obligations.