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.

Contracts – Consumer protection – Class actions – Are the financing plans offered by furniture and electrical appliance retailers contracts for the loan of money? – Can the credit charges collected by furniture and electrical appliance retailers on financing plans be subject to the requirements of the Consumer Protection Act (C.Q.L.R., c. P-40.1)? – Can the credit charges collected by furniture and electrical appliance retailers on financing plans be characterized as “interest” within the meaning of the Interest Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-15) and the Civil Code of Québec?

This case concerns two appeals. In the first appeal, the appellant purchased from the respondent, in this instance Brault & Martineau Inc., a stove, a range hood, a refrigerator, a moulding, a cleaning kit and an extra protection plan for the price of $3,785.95. The purchase was made at a time when the respondent was offering clients a rebate amounting to the sales taxes if they paid cash or the option of paying their purchase in 50 equal monthly instalments, without fees or interest. Rather than paying cash and benefiting from the tax-equivalent rebate, the appellant chose the Visa Desjardins (“Desjardins”) financing plan and paid the equivalent of the taxes, $528.14, on the spot. Arguing that the tax-equivalent rebate offered to clients paying cash constitutes a non-disclosed credit charge that had to be paid upon purchase in violation of the Consumer Protection Act, the Civil Code of Québec and the Interest Act, the appellant filed an application for authorization to institute a class action against the respondent.

In the second appeal, the appellant purchased from the respondent, in this instance Ameublements Tanguay Inc., a laptop computer and an extended two-year guarantee for the price of $924.90, plus tax. The purchase was also made at a time when the respondent was offering clients its [TRANSLATION] “we’ll pay both taxes, or opt for our 50-instalment payment plan”. Since she was already a Visa Desjardins card holder, the appellant chose to finance her purchase through Desjardins’s Accord D plan. She understood that because of her choice, she would not receive the rebate amounting to the value of the GST and PST, but not having read the note on the terms and conditions of the promotion, she expected that the amount corresponding to the taxes would be spread over the 50 consecutive monthly instalments; however, she was asked to pay the taxes of $119.08 immediately, and she did so using her Visa Desjardins credit card. The price of the laptop computer, $924.90, was also charged to her credit card account and became payable in 50 equal monthly instalments at an annual interest rate of 0% under the Accord D financing plan. Finding that the tax-equivalent rebate granted when paying cash constituted an undisclosed credit charge that should not have been payable immediately, the appellant filed an application for authorization to institute a class action against the respondent.
In both cases, the claim was for the reimbursement of the alleged credit charges or, in the alternative, a reduction in credit charges, in addition to punitive damages.