Case information

Consumer protection — Prohibited business practices — False or misleading representation — Class action — Additional or extended warranty — Under test developed by this Court in Richard v. Time Inc., 2012 SCC 8, whether false or misleading nature of representation must be analyzed from pre-contractual stage to stage of performance of merchant’s principal obligation — Whether merchant can fail to mention important fact without having obligation to tell consumer of that fact — Whether condition that there be authorized mandatary for judicial admission contemplated by art. 2852 para. 1 of Civil Code of Québec is required for admission contemplated by second paragraph of that article — Consumer Protection Act, CQLR, c. P-40, ss. 37, 38, 218, 219 and 272 — Civil Code of Québec, art. 2852.

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.

(SEALING ORDER) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC)

The applicants, Jenny Guindon, Claude Roulx, Carole Cake-Rochon, Kerfalla Touré and Luc Cantin, were all representative plaintiffs in five class actions brought against the following respondents, respectively: The Brick Warehouse LP, 2763923 Canada Inc. (c.o.b. as Centre Hi-Fi), Leon’s Furniture Limited, BMTC Group inc. (Brault & Martineau inc.) and Ameublements Tanguay inc. This litigation between consumers and furniture, appliance and electronics merchants concerned representations made by the merchants’ salespersons with regard to the additional or extended warranties offered on purchased products. The cause of action authorized for each of these collective actions was therefore based on the following proposition, which served as the representation complained of under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, CQLR, c. P-40, primarily relied upon: [translation] “in particular, the respondent[s’] salesperson represented to the applicant that if he did not purchase this additional warranty and there was a breakdown after the manufacturer’s one-year warranty expired, he would have to pay the costs of repair or replacement”. For each collective action, the class was defined as follows: [translation] “Persons who purchased an additional warranty before June 30, 2010, based on the respondent[s’] representations that if they did not purchase the additional warranty and there was a breakdown after the manufacturer’s one-year warranty expired, they would have to pay the costs of repair or replacement”. The applicants claimed compensatory damages corresponding to the value of the additional warranties sold by each of the respondents as well as punitive damages. The Superior Court dismissed the class action applications, and the Court of Appeal granted the motions to dismiss the appeals and dismissed the appeals.