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

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 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

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.

Summary of facts

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.

Reasons for the decision

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.

Summary of facts

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.

Reasons for the decision

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.

Summary of facts

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.

Reasons for the decision

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.

Summary of facts

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.

Reasons for the decision

The consumers are entitled to punitive damages due to the merchant's numerous violations of the Consumer Protection Act.

Summary of facts

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.

Reasons for the decision

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.

Summary of facts

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.

Reasons for the decision

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.