Quality of goods or services (warranties, non-compliance, latent defect, durability, etc.)
Consumer goods (furniture, household appliances, electronics, etc.)
Unspecified amount claimed
$1,000 awarded
The consumer purchased a defective sofa and television from a merchant. He also paid for an additional warranty protection but the merchant refused to honour it and take back the goods.
On several occasions, the persons acting on behalf of the merchant disregarded the consumer's rights.
The delivery persons did not respect the policy to call beforehand; they left in a hurry and turned off their telephone so they would not have to return to the consumer's home.
This resembles systemic conduct.
Failing to respond effectively and seriously to the buyers' complaints, refusing to give them access to information in their own file and making it difficult for them as soon as they threatened legal action is unacceptable conduct.
Refusing to honour a contractual warranty and failing to correct the situation after receiving information establishing the merits of the claim is also a violation of the merchant’s obligations under the Consumer Protection Act.
Contract (formality or non-compliance)
Childcare services
$400 sought
$200 awarded
The plaintiffs entered into a contract with a merchant for home childcare services.
The merchant cancelled the contract without notice via a text message.
The cancellation took effect the next business day although the contract required two weeks’ notice.
The merchant cancelled the contract due to her own negligence in ensuring compliance with the regulation applicable to her daycare.
She acted recklessly in accepting too many children.
She did not consider the impact her decisions might have on consumers. This is a serious breach.
Misleading or unfair practice
Travel
$100 sought
$100 awarded
The consumer purchased a travel package for three persons for $5,275.
The invoice he received indicated that he had a price drop guarantee.
When he saw that the same package was being sold for $4,895, he wanted to take advantage of the guarantee, but the merchant refused because he had not registered it within 7 days of his reservation.
The merchant did not provide the consumer with sufficiently clear information about the price drop guarantee he had purchased.
Its electronic reservation system could not record the choice of a consumer purchasing the guarantee, hence the need for the consumer to complete a separate form online.
In light of this situation, and given the possible impact on the client, the merchant should have ensured the information sent was clear. It did not do so.
Misleading or unfair practice
Travel
$4,000 sought
$4,000 awarded
The consumers signed a fee-for-service and timeshare agreement with a merchant.
They asked that the contract be cancelled, claiming that they signed it under pressure, following false representations and without having all the necessary information.
They did not have an opportunity to read the documents before signing them.
The consumers are entitled to punitive damages due to the merchant's numerous violations of the Consumer Protection Act.
Misleading or unfair practice
Automobiles and other vehicles
$15,000 sought
$2,500 awarded
A merchant instituted proceedings for damages against the consumers for failing to follow through on their promise to purchase a vehicle.
The consumers alleged that they were the victims of false or misleading representations, primarily concerning the condition of the vehicle.
They claimed it was supposed to be a new “demonstrator” when in fact it was a used vehicle. They were also misled about the year of manufacture and the mileage.
The merchant went bankrupt, but the consumers filed a cross-application against its shareholder and director claiming that the application was clearly unfounded and abusive. They claimed damages and punitive damages.
The shareholder and director of the merchant is personally liable. The merchant misrepresented the actual condition of the vehicle to the consumers.
Its refusal to accept the consumers’ cancellation of the promise to purchase and its decision to institute proceedings against them were unfounded. This constitutes harassment and violates the public order provisions of protection of the Consumer Protection Act.
Quality of goods or services (warranties, non-compliance, latent defect, durability, etc.)
Health
Unspecified amount claimed
$1,000 awarded
The consumer belonged to a gym and injured himself while using a weight machine.
A pin holding the weights of a machine slipped from its support and the weights crushed the client's left hand, fracturing two fingers.
Only one of the two types of pins supplied by the gym was the right size for the machine the consumer was using. Since there were not enough pins, however, clients used either pin indiscriminately depending on their availability.
The merchant failed to provide the consumer with the instructions required to safely use the machines. No warnings were given or posted on the machine.
The merchant was aware of the safety issue, however, because of prior incidents involving the same machine.
The merchant breached its obligation of safety towards the consumer.
Quality of goods or services (warranties, non-compliance, latent defect, durability, etc.)
Travel
$1,000 sought
$1,000 awarded
The consumer purchased a one-week travel package for a hotel in Cuba.
However, the hotel resort did not conform to the description on the merchant's website.
It claimed that it had 2 pools, 3 restaurants and 5 bars. The beach was also supposed to have deck chairs and “palapas”. However, this was not the case at all.
The beach had completely disappeared following a hurricane, major work was underway, and only one restaurant was open.
After the consumer reported the situation, the merchant was slow to add a notice on its website informing travellers that work was planned or underway at the hotel and that a section was closed for renovation.
The delay of one and a half months before acting and the fragmented, if not misleading, information about the beach suggest serious recklessness on its part.
Such conduct must be discouraged by an award of punitive damages.
Misleading or unfair practice
Automobiles and other vehicles
$1,000 sought
$1,000 awarded
The consumer purchased a used vehicle from a merchant.
After the sale, she discovered that areas of the car’s body had been repaired and repainted.
She alleged that the merchant falsely declared that the automobile had never been damaged or repainted.
The merchant breached its obligation to provide complete and accurate information about the vehicle before selling it to the consumer.
The breach of this obligation is even more reprehensible since the consumer had expressly and repeatedly specified that the vehicle’s body should never have been repaired or painted.
Misleading or unfair practice
Automobiles and other vehicles
$1,000 sought
$500 awarded
The consumer purchased a used automobile from a merchant.
After using it for only three months and having driven less than 7,000 kilometres, she learned that the vehicle's engine had to be replaced at a cost greater than the value of the automobile.
In addition, when she registered the vehicle, she discovered that the mileage “recorded” was lower than the previous mileage.
The merchant committed a serious fault by refusing to honour its legal warranty or disclose the vehicle's actual mileage.
Contract (formality or non-compliance)
Housing, renovation, and moves
Unspecified amount claimed
$5,000 awarded
The consumer paid $402 to an itinerant merchant on the pretext that he had to check his heat pump at the manufacturer's request.
The merchant did not hold an itinerant merchant’s permit.
He used illegal and abusive means to induce the consumer to enter into a contract based on false representations. He also introduced himself to the consumer using a false identity.