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.

Summary of facts

The consumer signed a contract for the lease of services from a health studio for one year.

At the same time, she also entered into an accessory contract for the services of a personal trainer, a physical fitness assessment, and a nutritional assessment. This contract was not written and did not indicate the price of each service.

One month later, the consumer cancelled the principal contract and the accessory contract.

In addition to charging one-tenth of the annual membership fee, the merchant imposed a penalty for cancelling the accessory contract.

The merchant also referred the consumer’s file to a collection agency and a note was added to her credit record.

Reasons for the decision

The charge for cancelling the accessory contract breaches the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act applicable to health studios.

Placing a note in a credit record for a debt that is known to be disputed and illegal is abusive and must be sanctioned by an award of punitive damages.

The merchant has admitted to doing this regularly.

This business practice is intended only to put pressure on parties and harm them to induce them to pay the amount charged.

Charging an amount that is contrary to the public order provisions of the Consumer Protection Act is a serious fault.

Summary of facts

The consumer took out a $30,000 hypothecary loan at 10% interest, secured by a second hypothec on his residence.

The lender sought authorization to take the immovable in payment on the ground that the consumer failed to repay the loan.

Reasons for the decision

The notice of disclosure attached to the deed of loan does not comply with the Consumer Protection Act. In particular, it contains false or misleading representations about the net capital amount, the consumer’s total obligation, and the credit rate.

In addition, the consumer was not given the notice of disclosure before the loan was signed.

Asking the consumer to pay credit charges of $6,400 on a $30,000 loan when it is not stated in the contract constitutes intentional, malicious, or vexatious fault by the merchant.

Summary of facts

The consumer purchased a new vehicle from a merchant for $70,426.

She claims that the vendor misrepresented the year of manufacture, the actual mileage, and the repairs done before the purchase.

Reasons for the decision

The merchant demonstrated serious recklessness.

It led its client to believe that she was purchasing a car whose components were all manufactured in 2011, which was not the case. It also misrepresented that it was a new vehicle that had never been repaired before the sale and that the mileage was accurate.

These are serious faults that require a sanction. 

Summary of facts

After a call from the merchant’s representative informing them that they were eligible for a grant, the consumers purchased a dual energy heat recovery system for $13,222, with a 25‑year lifetime warranty on the housing and 10 years on labour.

After the sale, they found that the good did not correspond to the one offered and was just a cheaper simple heat pump with only a 10-year manufacturer’s warranty.

The consumers also did not save on energy as promised, and no grant program applied to the unit they purchased.

Reasons for the decision

The consumers were deceived by the very description of the good they purchased, on which a misleading label had been affixed. They were also victims of false representations by the merchant, who exploited them.

Punitive damages of $3,000 are justified, given the seriousness of the acts at issue, namely, selling a good other than the one advertised, misrepresenting the brand, charging exorbitant hidden fees, and using misleading sales strategies.

Summary of facts

A former subscriber had a debt to the telecommunications company, which hired a collections agency to recover the amount owing.

However, the telephone number used by the former subscriber belonged to Crevier, a third party. The agency used a computerized system to send a series of messages at regular intervals to that number’s voicemail. After deciphering the number sending the messages, Crevier informed the agency of its error.

He sought punitive damages from the telecommunications company, arguing that the company and the agency treated him disrespectfully. The Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, ruled in his favour and condemned the company to pay him $999 in punitive damages.

Reasons for the decision

The Court of Québec was wrong to find that the violation of his privacy was intentional because Crevier did not establish that the company wanted to intimidate him.

Furthermore, even if the company did contravene the Act respecting the collection of certain debts by repeatedly sending Crevier a series of messages, the Court of Québec should have explained how these messages violated his privacy. The four or five telephone calls made over a short period of time were not abusive; recovery of a debt constitutes the exercise of a legitimate right.

In the circumstances, the repeated calls, albeit annoying, are not sufficiently serious to form the basis of an action to remedy the violation of the right to privacy, especially since the agency stopped its collections procedure as soon as it was informed of the error.

Summary of facts

The financial institution tried to recover from the applicant the amount owing on one of her spouse’s credit cards after he went bankrupt.

The applicant contests owing the balance because she is not the holder of her spouse’s credit card or his surety. She submits that the financial institution harassed her and she seeks compensation.

Reasons for the decision

The financial institution harassed the applicant by calling her four or five times a day at home and at the office, thereby violating the Act respecting the collection of certain debts. It could not contact the applicant at work because it had her contact information at home and was using it.

Moreover, the applicant immediately informed the financial institution that she contested the account because she was not the card holder. A party that claims a legal obligation from another party must put the other on notice to perform, failing which, it may sue the other party before the courts.

The applicant responded to the financial institution by telephone and in writing, telling it to cease all telephone communications. The financial institution should have stopped calling as soon as it received the letters, but it did not. 

The financial institution’s conduct constitutes harassment.

Punitive damages are justified, given the wilful blindness displayed by the financial institution in failing to adjust its collections procedure to the requirements of the law and to the situation of the applicant, who contested the merits of the claim. The financial institution acted with full knowledge of the probable consequences of its actions on the applicant.