Summary of facts

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.

Reasons for the decision

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.

Summary of facts

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.

Reasons for the decision

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.

Summary of facts

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.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant committed a serious fault by refusing to honour its legal warranty or disclose the vehicle's actual mileage.

Summary of facts

The consumer paid $402 to an itinerant merchant on the pretext that he had to check his heat pump at the manufacturer's request.

Reasons for the decision

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.

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.