Summary of facts

The consumers signed a childcare services agreement with a merchant operating a daycare.

The morning the child arrived at the daycare, however, they learned that the child's space was no longer available.

To correct this situation, the daycare representative suggested to the parents that the child attend his spouse's home childcare service, which was located across the street, but they refused. They did not want their child to attend a home childcare service.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant was negligent in failing to promptly inform the consumers that there was no longer a place available for the child.

It was careless and reckless in dealing with the situation, believing that another daycare could handle any problems related to the lack of places.

Summary of facts

The consumers' recreational vehicle broke down while they were on their vacation in the United States. The vehicle had been driven less than 10,000 kilometres.

Under the manufacturer's warranty, the vehicle was serviced by a Mercedes-Benz dealership in the United States.

Mercedes-Benz Canada paid the cost of the repairs. However, the consumers had to wait five weeks before their vehicle was repaired by the U.S. representative.

Reasons for the decision

The repairs were not done within a reasonable time.

The merchant was reckless and seriously negligent.

It did not perform the minimal follow-up that the consumers required when they returned to the country to verify the quality of the repairs done in the United States.

Summary of facts

The consumers saw an online advertisement by a dealer for the sale of a used vehicle for $16,000, with or without financing.

The consumers were interested in this vehicle and visited the merchant for more information and a test drive.

They noticed that $2,800 was added to the sale price. This amount corresponded to the value of the certification program, giving access to financing at 2.99% for up to 7 years and to the manufacturer's extended warranty.

Given the age and mileage of the vehicle, the consumers did not want to pay for the extended warranty. However, the dealer informed them that the 2.99% financing was inseparable from the extended warranty. Therefore, the sale did not go through.

Reasons for the decision

In refusing to sell a vehicle at the advertised price and requiring that the sale be financed, the dealer provided the consumers with false and misleading information.

It indirectly demanded a higher price than the advertised price and withheld an important fact.

This business conduct should be condemned and the merchant deterred from repeating it by awarding the consumers punitive damages.

Summary of facts

The consumers purchased a travel package for themselves and their young children.

They chose a hotel from the wholesaler's brochure that offered special activities for children and free 3-day access to a water park.

When they arrived at the hotel, however, they discovered that trips to the water park were no longer included in the package purchased for the room category in which they were staying, that they were responsible for the cost of getting there, and that the park was only open on weekends.

In addition, the water park was closed due to the Easter holiday.

Reasons for the decision

The wholesaler was reckless, seriously negligent, and lax in its attitude towards the consumers.

It failed to inform the travel agents that the selected hotel no longer offered access to the water park.

It knew that the information in its advertising brochures and on its website was confusing, but it knowingly allowed false information to circulate and published it for several months without making any corrections.

The consumers did not have access to the water park during their stay in the South, contrary to what was stated in the brochure.

Summary of facts

The consumers purchased a trailer from the merchant for $72,449.

They wanted to purchase a new recreational vehicle and this is what was stated in the sales contract.

They were never informed, however, that there had been numerous water infiltrations requiring major repairs before the sale.

Indeed, the trailer had been abandoned and forgotten on the dealer's lot for three years.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant breached the Consumer Protection Act by failing to disclose the trailer's actual condition. It failed to mention an important fact.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a used vehicle from a merchant.

According to the Carproof report obtained before the sale, the vehicle had sustained rear-end damage in an accident.

On several occasions, the merchant stated that the car had not been involved in any other accidents and that there was no other damage. It also submitted an inspection sheet indicating that there were no defects.

A body shop subsequently informed the consumer that the car also had front-end damage but that the body shop had only been hired to do cosmetic work on the car before the sale.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant was reckless and seriously negligent.

It did not provide information about the car's actual condition before selling it to the consumer.

It also falsely confirmed that there was no damage to the front of the vehicle.

Summary of facts

The consumers purchased a travel package for Mexico in a hotel offering a section reserved for guests aged 18 years and over.

In its advertising brochure, the travel wholesaler promised to provide its clients with an exceptional travel experience. It was supposed to be a haven of peace.

However, the consumers' trip was spoiled by numerous incidents. The hotel was occupied by young revellers and families with children in the section that was supposed to be reserved for adults.

Reasons for the decision

The product sold did not conform to the contract, and the service provided on site was poor. The hotel did not meet the promised standards of quality and comfort.

In addition, in its advertisement, the wholesaler touted its team of experts and network of first-class partners but offered no support to the consumers or to the travel agency.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a used vehicle from the merchant for $17,844.

The following  year, he learned that the car had already been in two accidents. Yet the vendor had told him that the vehicle had never been in an accident.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant was reckless and grossly negligent.

It failed to read the CarProof report before selling the vehicle and confirmed to the consumer that the vehicle had never been in an accident.

It also advertised that it had been inspected when it had not.

Last, it falsely advertised that the vehicle’s appearance and mechanical condition were impeccable.

Summary of facts

Less than 3 hours after purchasing his travel package online, the consumer realized that the hotel was not located where he thought it was, but rather 180 km from the airport where his plane was to land.

He attributed his mistake to the misleading information on the wholesaler’s website.

The consumer immediately contacted the wholesaler to cancel his reservation, but it refused because the departure was three days later and the package could not be resold to another client.

The consumer therefore reluctantly agreed to take the trip he had purchased.

Reasons for the decision

By failing to inform its client that he could cancel his travel package purchased less than 3 hours earlier and claiming that it was impossible to do so, the wholesaler engaged in prohibited business practices.

It failed to mention an important fact.

It committed an objectively serious fault and breached public order rules.

Summary of facts

The consumers purchased a travel package for Cuba.

Their flight schedule was changed to add a layover, so their outbound and inbound flights were not direct.

Reasons for the decision

Any stipulation that the merchant can unilaterally amend the contract is void, unless the merchant sent the consumer a notice containing the new clause at least 30 days before the amendment came into effect, which was not done.

The travel agency and the wholesaler breached their obligation of result. They did not comply with the terms of the contract.

They also refused to accommodate the consumers claiming that they should have purchased cancellation travel insurance.