Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In December 1996, the Appellant and her husband purchased a brand new 1996 Dodge Ram 4 x 4 one-half ton truck. Financing was arranged through the Respondent Dodge City Auto (1984) Ltd. Fourteen months later, with only 31,000 km on the odometer, the truck burned beyond repair. They had paid $43,198.80 for the vehicle including taxes and extended warranty from the Respondent Chrysler Canada Ltd. (“Chrysler”). Upon learning of the incident, Chrysler did not assist the Appellant and declined to negotiate despite numerous requests from the Appellant; rather, it redirected them to their insurer. The Appellant’s insurer, Saskatchewan Government Insurance (“S.G.I.”) investigated the fire and concluded that it was caused by a defective daytime running light module. The Appellant settled her insurance claim with S.G.I. who valued her truck with its age and milage at $27,340 minus a $700 deductible. Although the initial financing arrangements with Canada Trust called for ‘replacement value’ insurance, no such insurance was in place at the time of the loss. S.G.I. realized $8000 for the salvage value of the truck. The insurance proceeds were put towards the Appellant’s loan for the vehicle; however, because the security was destroyed, the bank increased the interest rate from 8% per annum to 11% per annum. Two other Dodge trucks had caught fire after that of the Appellant and S.G.I. had a claim against Chrysler on all three trucks at the time of trial.

The trial judge concluded that the cause of the fire was a defect in the daytime running lights module. She concluded that the Respondents breached The Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, she concluded that pursuant to s. 65 of the Act, exemplary damages should be awarded to the Appellant. Costs were awarded on a party and party basis rather than solicitor client basis as a result of the exemplary damages award. The Respondents appealed the damages award. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It upheld the non-exemplary damage award but found that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an award of exemplary damages. As a result of their success, the Court awarded costs of the appeal to the Respondents and upheld the award of party and party costs of the trial to the Appellant.