Misleading or unfair practice
Travel
$2,500 sought
$800 awarded
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.
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.
Misleading or unfair practice
Automobiles and other vehicles
$5,460 sought
$300 awarded
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.
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.
Misleading or unfair practice
Housing, renovation, and moves
$3,000 sought
$500 awarded
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.
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.
Misleading or unfair practice
Automobiles and other vehicles
$5,000 sought
$1,000 awarded
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.
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.
Quality of goods or services (warranties, non-compliance, latent defect, durability, etc.)
Automobiles and other vehicles
$2,500 sought
$1,000 awarded
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.
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.
Misleading or unfair practice
Automobiles and other vehicles
$10,000 sought
$5,000 awarded
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.
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.
Quality of goods or services (warranties, non-compliance, latent defect, durability, etc.)
Travel
$1,000 sought
$400 awarded
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.
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.
Automobiles and other vehicles
Unspecified amount claimed
$400 awarded
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.
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.
Misleading or unfair practice
Automobiles and other vehicles
$15,000 sought
$5,000 awarded
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.
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.
Quality of goods or services (warranties, non-compliance, latent defect, durability, etc.)
Automobiles and other vehicles
$2,000 claimed
$0 awarded
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.
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.