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 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 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.

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.