Rarotonga, 2010


Online Lawyer (Ontario)

Legal Guides
tenant / small claims / welfare (ontario works) / odsp / human rights / employment / consumer /
collection agencies / criminal injuries compensation / sppa (admin law) / animal cruelty / dogs & cats / wild animal law (all Canada)

home / about / Simon's Favorite Charity / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Get a Fee


... what's this?


Consumer Protection (Ontario) Law
General CPA Law
(01 July 2013)

Chapter 6 - Unfair Practices

  1. Overview
    (a) Practice Note
    (b) About Unfair Practices
  2. False, Misleading or Deceptive
    (a) 'False', 'Misleading' and 'Deceptive' Distinguished
    (b) The 'False, Misleading or Deceptive' Example 'List'
  3. Unconscionable Representations
    (a) Overview
    (b) Intention and Negligence
    (c) The Unconscionability Factor 'List'
  4. Renegotiation under Duress Against Consumer Property Held
  5. Remedies for Unfair Practices
    (a) Overview
    (b) Rescission and Restitution, Where Possible
    . Overview
    . All Collateral Agreements Also Rescinded
    . No Causality Requirements
    . Are Restitutary Duties Mutual?
    (c) Alternative Remedy Where Return of Goods and Services to Supplier Not Possible
    (d) Damages in Any Event
    (e) Punitive Damages
    (f) Notice Requirements
    . Overview
    . Notice Requirements
    . Service of Notice
    . When Right to Sue Accrues
    . Court Waiver of Notice
    (g) Civil Court Proceedings
    . Overview
    . Parole Evidence Rule Excepted
    . Liability Amongst Multiple Parties
  6. Parties to an Unfair Practice
    (a) Overview
    (b) Suppliers
    (c) Agents
    (d) Employees
    (e) Corporations
    (f) Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships
    (g) Corporate Directors and Officers
    (h) Mistake and Fraud
    (i) Advertising Logistical Support Excepted
    (j) Manufacturers
    . Overview
    . Case Note: Singer v Schering-Plough Canada (Ont Sup
    Ct, 2010)
  7. Administrative Orders and Unfair Practices

1. Overview

(a) Practice Note

"Unfair practices" are a specific type of overarching consumer law violation, typically more serious than non-compliance with the 'general' CPA rights provisions discussed in Part C, Ch.5 ["General Consumer Rights"], Ch.7 ["General Civil Remedies"] or in the sector chapters found in Part B (eg. motor vehicle repair, etc). Likewise, most procedures and remedies for "unfair practices" are unique to the "unfair practices" regime [CPA 91], including: remedies available, notice provisions, parties
and so on.

However that does not mean that a consumer facing one fact situation must elect between the general and the 'unfair practices' regime when pursuing a remedy, as the two are not mutually exclusive. Readers should consider their particular fact situation from both the 'general' and the 'unfair practices' (this chapter) perspectives to fully explore their remedial oppourtunities.

(b) About Unfair Practices

The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) prohibits particular market behaviours which it calls "unfair practices" [CPA 17(1,2)]. These provisions are not limited in application just to suppliers (ie. the person on the other side of the 'consumer agreement' or contract), and in fact most of them relate to behaviour engaged in before a contract of formed, by people trying to sell things to consumers.

While ther term 'practices' suggests a broad range of supplier behaviour, in fact they are almost entirely limited to 'false, misleading or deceptive' and otherwise unconscionable "representations" (advertising or communications) [CPA 14].

The CPA defines a "representation" as follows:
CPA s.1 "representation" means a representation, claim, statement, offer, request or proposal that is or purports to be,

(a) made respecting or with a view to the supplying of goods or services to consumers, or

(b) made for the purpose of receiving payment for goods or services supplied or purporting to be supplied to consumers;
While clause (a) ["made ... with a view to the supplying of goods or services to consumers"] is plainly broad enough to capture most advertising-type statements, clause (b) is often overlooked for it's potential application to bill collection activities. While I explore that latter potential more fully in my Isthatlegal.ca Collection Agencies (Ontario) Legal Guide, Ch.7: The CPA and Collection Practices, the main thrust of the present chapter is on the 'advertising' side of unfair practices.

The single non-representation form of an unfair practice is discussed in s.4, below ("Renegotiation under Duress Against Consumer Property Held").

This predominant concern with 'false, misleading or deceptive representations' locates the 'unfair practices' CPA regime within the larger family of 'false advertising' law which is manifest at the federal level in the Competition Act.

CPA "unfair practices" fall into three categories, each considered in turn in the next three sections below. These are:
  • false, misleading or deceptive representations [s.2; CPA 14(1)]
  • unconscionable representations [s.3; CPA 15(1)]
  • re-negotiation under duress [s.4; CPA 16]
The remaining sections of this chapter address the remedial and enforcement provisions that are unique to the 'unfair practices' regime.
In what is now probably a 'spent' (ie. obsolete) provision, the CPA continues the operation of the old Business Practices Act in relation to consumer transactions that occured before the 'new' CPA came in force 30 July 2005 under (then) Bill 180 [CPA s.19]. If you are dealing with an 'unfair practice'-like situation dating back that far, you should review that legislation.
Case Note:
Richard v. Time Inc.
(SCC, 2012)

This was a very interesting case involving those ridiculous promotional envelopes circulated by magazine publishers in an attempt to deceive people into buying subscriptions. This one touting that the recipient was entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars if they only claimed it quickly and in the manner outlined, which really amounted to purchasing a subscription. While the case analysis and result turned very much on the specific wording of Quebec consumer protection legislation, some useful general comments on consumer protection law were made by the court, as follows:
[43] The measures to protect consumers from fraudulent advertising practices are one expression of a legislative intent to move away from the maxim caveat emptor, or “let the buyer beware”. As a result of these measures, merchants, manufacturers and advertisers are responsible for the veracity of information they provide to consumers and may, should such information contain falsehoods, incur the civil or penal consequences provided for in the legislation. As Judge Matheson of the Ontario County Court explained in R. v. Colgate‑Palmolive Ltd., [1970] 1 C.C.C. 100, a case involving federal law, the maxim caveat venditor is now far more appropriate to describe the merchant‑consumer relationship. In an oft‑cited judgment, he wrote the following:
This legislation is the expression of a social purpose, namely the establishment of more ethical trade practices calculated to afford greater protection to the consuming public. It represents the will of the people of Canada that the old maxim caveat emptor, let the purchaser beware, yield somewhat to the more enlightened view caveat venditor — let the seller beware.

[57] In sum, it is our opinion that the test under s. 218 C.P.A. is that of the first impression. In the case of false or misleading advertising, the general impression is the one a person has after an initial contact with the entire advertisement, and it relates to both the layout of the advertisement and the meaning of the words used. This test is similar to the one that must be applied under the Trade‑marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, to determine whether a trade‑mark causes confusion (Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltée, 2006 SCC 23 (CanLII), 2006 SCC 23, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 824, at para. 20; Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc., 2011 SCC 27 (CanLII), 2011 SCC 27, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 387, at para. 41).


[65] The C.P.A. is one of a number of statutes enacted to protect Canadian consumers. The courts that have applied these statutes have often used the average consumer test. In conformity with the objective of protection that underlies such legislation, the courts have assumed that the average consumer is not very sophisticated.

[66] This Court’s decisions relating to trade‑marks provide a good example of this interpretive approach. In Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 (CanLII), 2006 SCC 22, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 772, the Court was asked to clarify the standard to be used by the courts to determine whether a trade‑mark causes confusion with a registered trade‑mark. Binnie J., writing for the Court, concluded that the average consumers protected by the Trade‑marks Act are “ordinary hurried purchasers” (para. 56). He explained that “[t]he standard is not that of people ‘who never notice anything’ but of persons who take no more than ‘ordinary care to observe that which is staring them in the face’” (para. 58).

2. False, Misleading or Deceptive

(a) 'False', 'Misleading' and 'Deceptive' Distinguished

The three terms "false, misleading or deceptive" come from a mixed background of both civil and criminal law, and they can have different meanings in the two different contexts.

For instance, a representation may be 'false' or 'misleading' under the civil law but not criminal in that the person making the representation lacked any intention to lie or deceive when they made the representation (ie. it was an innocent mistake). Since the CPA is a civil regulatory statute, it is in this 'innocent' sense that those two terms operate here - ie. unless otherwise specified, there is no requirement that the respondent intended the prohibited result.

'Falsity' then, under this standard, is a relatively straightforward comparison between the literal representation made versus the facts about goods, services or contractual terms (ie. was the representation true or not?).

Similarly, the term 'misleading' focusses rather on what the consumer is 'led' to believe, but does not require that the respondent intended to mislead the consumer. Most cases of examining 'misleading' representations will invoke judicial consideration of what the hypothetically 'reasonably-informed' person would come to believe when faced with the same representations.

The term 'deceptive' is a bit more troublesome, because if we understand it in the sense of lacking intention - it is indistinguishable from the term 'misleading'. Principles of statutory interpreation do not tolerate generally two terms meaning the same thing, particularly in such close quarters to each other, so it seems necessary to impute to the concept of 'deceptive' an added element of intention. Because of this, you can expect few consumer situations to require use of this stronger term, as the easie r 'misleading' standard will almost always be adequate to the task.

That said, CPA law only infrequently adds an additional 'intent' requirement on top of 'false, misleading or deceptive', a statement which is true of its offence prosecution provisions (Ch.11) as well [one exception is in s.3 below where intent is often an integral part of the 'unconscionability' form of 'unfair practices']. Those few exceptions are noted when they occur in this chapter, but they (like the 'deceptive' category) are redundant as those provisions of the CPA can be triggered
without any elemen t of intention under the innocent 'false' or 'misleading' categories. At most evidence of intention to deceive (ie. fraud) is only relevant to the CPA for offence sentencing purposes and for punitive damage claims.

Of course, if a representation WAS made in an intentionally 'false, misleading or deceptive' manner then - in addition to falling under CPA application - it may also come under Criminal Code provisions (typically fraud), a topic which is beyond the scope of this present Isthatlegal.ca Consumer Law (Ontario) Guide.

In short, it will be adequate in almost all situations for consumers to disregard the intention behind the making of an allegedly 'false, misleading or deceptive' representation - indeed, why make more work for yourself in a legal situation than you have to? That said, if it is obvious and easy to prove, it will just make your case stronger.

(b) The 'False, Misleading or Deceptive' Example 'List'

The CPA offers a list of general consumer situations which qualify as being "false, misleading or deceptive representations". These examples are not mutually exclusive, so it would not be surprising if some fact situations comfortably locate themselves within more than one of them [CPA 14(2)]. Neither are they exhaustive, which means that situations other than those listed could conceivably be found to be 'false, misleading or deceptive' as well.

These statutory 'examples' follow below.
  • False or Misleading Representation Re Sponsorship or Nature of Goods or Services

    "A representation that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, ingredients, benefits or qualities they do not have."

    It is common for manufacturers in particular to print labels or official-looking certificates on their products in an attempt to persuade the consumer that their products are independently judged to be of a high standard. While some of these are legitimate, many are issued by captive, in-house or industry-funded organizations.

  • False or Misleading Representation Re Sponsorship or Affiliation of Supplier

    "A representation that the person who is to supply the goods or services has sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection the person does not have."

  • False or Misleading Representation Re Quality of Goods or Services

    "A representation that the goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model, if they are not."

    This category resembles certain 'conditions and warranties' implied into consumer agreements by the CPA, and as well some imported into the CPA from the Sales of Goods Act. These are discussed in Part C, Ch.5, s.3: "General Consumer Rights: Warranties and Conditions Preserved".

  • False or Misleading Representation Re Used Goods as New

    "A representation that the goods are new, or unused, if they are not or are reconditioned or reclaimed, but the reasonable use of goods to enable the person to service, prepare, test and deliver the goods does not result in the goods being deemed to be used for the purposes of this paragraph."

    This provision might apply to prevent a car dealer from claiming that a 'demo' (demonstration) car, driven by many successive prospective customers, is still new.

  • False or Misleading Representation Re Degree of Use of Goods

    "A representation that the goods have been used to an extent that is materially different from the fact.'

    A clear-cut example of this would be a car where the odometer has been turned back, misrepresenting the mileage it has been driven - though that would constitute criminal fraud as well.
    Case Note:
    Thye v 1269273 Ontario Ltd (Ont Sup Ct, 2008) was a trial court judgment where the plaintiff successfully claimed rescission and restitution respecting the purchase of a used motor vehicle. The plaintiff asked if the vehicle had ever been in an accident and the supplier stated that none had been reported, and cited three reports to that effect including a CarFax. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant supplier engaged in the unfair practices of misrepresenting that the car had not previously been in an accident, when it had. The court agreed with the plaintiff's expert that it had been in an accident. The case is interesting as the court approached the unfair practice issue of 'no prior accidents' representations from a traditional breach of contract and negligence perspective, while the CPA has no such requirements and is satisfied by simple falsity - regardless of fault.
  • False or Misleading Representation Re Reason for Availability of Goods or Services

    "A representation that the goods or services are available for a reason that does not exist."

    A fact example of this might be a false or misleading representation that a used car came into the supplier's possession as the result of a forced sale, implying that the supplier got it inexpensively before the original owner had used it much, and is in turn selling it inexpensively.

  • False or Misleading Representation Re Prior Representation Re Goods or Services

    "A representation that the goods or services have been supplied in accordance with a previous representation, if they have not."

    Examples of this might be:

    - a false or misleading representation that the goods or services are being supplied to the consumer in accordance with their prior request or order, when no such request or order was made by the consumer;

    - a false or misleading representation that the goods or services being supplied are with features requested by the consumer, when no such request was made (eg. 'But you said you wanted it in green!').

    Further, there is nothing in this category that requires that the previous representation be made by the consumer rather than a third party, so this example could also catch the 'only drove it on Sundays to go to church' scenario.

  • Deceptive or Negligent Representation Re Availability of Goods or Services

    "A representation that the goods or services or any part of them are available or can be delivered or performed when the person making the representation knows or ought to know they are not available or cannot be delivered or performed'"

    This addresses situations where people try to sell goods or services that are not available in order to get a sale now, and then come up with delaying excuses later. In light of the next-following example, this one must refer to the COMPLETE unavailability (that even waiting won't fix) of the goods or services.

    Fitting to the nature of the falsity involved here, and unlike most 'unfair practices' this example does require a mental element of intention (ie.'knows'), or at least 'negligence' (ie. 'ought to know'), to be satisfied. The first is sometimes called a 'subjective' standard of knowledge (meaning from the perspective of the person themselves), and the second an 'objective' one (meaning from the hypothetical perspective of the average person).

    {nlike most 'unfair practice' examples given in this list, there is no 'absolute liability' standard (ie. satisfied by simple proof that the representation was made, even if it was innocent). Thus non-negligent mistake will not invoke this example.

  • False or Misleading Representation Re Timing of Availability

    "A representation that the goods or services or any part of them will be available or can be delivered or performed by a specified time when the person making the representation knows or ought to know they will not be available or cannot be delivered or performed by the specified time."

    Like the above example, this one requires either deception ('knows'), or 'negligence' (ie. 'ought to know'), to be satisfied. A mistaken representation made both innocently and without negligent would not invoke this example.

    A fact example of this might be where goods were promised for delivery on a certain day when the seller knew that they were presently out-of-stock and that new stock was not expected to be delivered until after the date promised. The seller is motivated to close the sale and get the money now, and prepared to fob the consumer off with excuses later.

    A 'negligence' version of this could be where the seller simply never checked stock availability before assuring the consumer of a delivery date.

  • False or Misleading Representation Re the Need for Repair or Replacement

    "A representation that a service, part, replacement or repair is needed or advisable, if it is not."

    This is self-evident. It is particularly applicable to motor vehicle repair, which is the subject of its own chapter of that name in Part B. That chapter has specific provision for the return of replaced parts to the consumer so that they can see if they are indeed damaged or worn.

  • False or Misleading Representation Re Price Advantage

    "A representation that a specific price advantage exists, if it does not."

    A fact example of this would be a false or misleading representation that the goods or services are 'half regular price', when they are not - or perhaps a false "going out of business sale". Pricing gimmicks are numerous and will be as varied as the imagination of suppliers. Each should be examined for its truth and forthrightness.

  • False or Misleading Representation Re Negotiation Authority

    "A representation that misrepresents the authority of a salesperson, representative, employee or agent to negotiate the final terms of the agreement."

    This is sometimes called 'double-dealing'. The idea is that the person that you deal with 'negotiates' to pull you to the highest price they can, and then at the end tells you that the 'deal' you think you have has to be 'approved by his boss' (or similar) - who usually never appears. The original person then comes back and tells you that their boss won't settle for less than 'X' dollars, which is invariably higher than what you thought you had a deal on. The goal of the technique is to
    both extra ct a higher price from you and to cause you to invest time and energy in the negotiation, time which you do not wish to have to re-expend somewhere else by walking away from the deal.

  • False or Misleading Representation Re Rights in Event of False, Misleading or Deceptive Representations

    "A representation that the transaction involves or does not involve rights, remedies or obligations if the representation is false, misleading or deceptive."

    This example could apply if the supplier tells you that the sale is exempt from CPA or other legal protections when it is not. For reference, CPA-exempt economic sectors are listed in Part C, Ch.2 ["Exemptions from Coverage"], most others are governed by the CPA's unfair practice provisions.

    Similarly it could apply to a representation that the sale is protected by (positive) rights and remedies that do not in law exist. Though in that case the statement itself might be useful to compel the supplier to extend the rights they have represented, arguing that the 'false' representation became a new contractual consumer entitlement.

    While traditional rules of evidence sometimes bar the admission of oral statements to vary the terms of a written contract (this is the often-excepted 'parole evidence' rule), this rule has been expressly excepted for civil claims based on unfair practices [see s.5(g) below: "Remedies for Unfair Practices: Civil Court Proceedings: Parol Evidence Rule Excepted"]. In any event a claim could also be grounded in the tort of negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation, arguing that the false representation induced the consumer to enter into the contract when they otherwise would not have.

  • False or Misleading Representation Re Material Facts

    "A representation using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact or failing to state a material fact if such use or failure deceives or tends to deceive."

    A 'material fact' is one which is pivotal to your decision to make a purchase. For instance, if you require an electrical appliance compatible with a particular foreigh country's electrical system, but you get one only compatible with North American systems - that issue is 'material' to your purchase decision. The item is simply useless for your purpose, and you would not have purchased it had you known.

    The additional of this 'material' requirement here distinguishes this form of unfair practice from what is generally known (and historically tolerated) as "puffery". This is a legal term of long-standing that tolerates typical extreme characterizations of goods or services features (eg. 'super-spectacular, humungous, fantastic, etc'). Such terms, amorphous by nature, will likely be tolerated by courts insofar as they relate to non-material (minor) features, and insofar as they are broad, relatively meaningless characterizations of the good or service as a whole.

    That said, this is an area of advertising that hides many sins, and consumers should not be too accepting of such representations when they actually DO induce them to purchase. An example of this might be where a consumer was induced to visit a particular out-of-town store to shop as the result of advertising for a 'super-fantastic blow-out sale', and ending up facing regularly-priced merchandise - thus wasting their valuable time and effort.

  • Misrepresentation Re Purpose of Solicitation or Communication

    "A representation that misrepresents the purpose or intent of any solicitation of or any communication with a consumer."

    This is designed to catch sales contacts that purport to be something else. How many of us (I certainly have) have received telemarketing phone calls, asked immediately if this 'is a sales call', been told no - and then have the caller proceed to try to sell us something. Techniques here include purporting that the communication is to 'assess our utility expenses', 'conduct a survey', etc. The techniques rely on people being too polite to hang up and so keep talking to the seller.

    It is a particularly pernicious technique when applied to seniors and those with reduced critical faculties, and who are sometimes just plain lonely.

  • Misrepresentation Re Purpose of Charge

    "A representation that misrepresents the purpose of any charge or proposed charge."

    This category both includes and exceeds the making of a charge for a good or service that was simply not provided (ie. simple mistake or fraud). Were it so limited, simpler language such as a "charge for a good or service not provided" would have sufficed.

    It may include attempts by unscrupulous suppliers to impose 'extra charges' on top of the principal amount negotiated for, in a bald attempt to squeeze more money out of the consumer. They usually have banal characterizations such as 'transaction fees', 'administration fees', etc where no significant or unusual reason exists to justify such charges.

  • False or Misleading Representation Re Benefits of Referring New Customers

    "A representation that misrepresents or exaggerates the benefits that are likely to flow to a consumer if the consumer helps a person obtain new or potential customers."

    This example is more revealing by what it implicitly tolerates than by what it prohibits. It implies that CPA law allows suppliers to contract with consumers for a benefit if the consumer refers other consumers to the supplier - as long there is no falsity, misleading or exaggerating element to the representation of the benefit or compensation.

3. Unconscionable Representations

(a) Overview

The CPA provides that [CPA 15(1)]:
CPA 15(1) It is an unfair practice to make an unconscionable representation.
The concept of 'unconscionability' is drawn from the common law of contracts, where it is used to justify rescission (cancellation) of the agreement or to excuse a party from particularly onerous 'unconscionable' terms. In the CPA 'unfair practice' regime it is applied to 'representations'.

While elements of the usual common law criteria for unconscionability (ie. duress, inequity, reduced capacity), are included in the similar unfair practice determination, the CPA once against offers a 'list' for that purpose. This list [at (c) below] - unlike the similar 'list' for 'false, misleading and deceptove' representations [s.2(b) above] - does not give examples, but rather offers the factors that are to be assessed when determining unconscionability.

(b) Intention and Negligence

Unlike the case with 'false, misleading and deceptive' representations (s.2 above), CPA law seems to prefer (though not demand) at least an element of negligence on the part of the supplier who creates the unconscionable situation, and will of course also be satified by proof of full intention to do so. This conclusion is drawn from the preamble to the 'list' of unconscionability factors [see (c) below], which reads [CPA 15(2)]:
CPA 15(2)
Without limiting the generality of what may
be taken into account in determining whether a representation is unconscionable, there may be taken into account that the person making the representation or the person's employer or principal knows or ought to know, ...
These are concepts of subjective knowledge or intent ('knows') and objective knowledge ('ought to know) (aka negligence or 'strict liability') discussed in s.2(a) above. A third category, allowed widely for 'false, misleading and deceptive' representations and sometimes called ' absolute liability' (where only the act of putting the consumer in the prohibited situation is required) is not expressly mentioned. However the above-quoted preamble plainly grants an adjudicator the discretion (ie. those factors "MAY be taken into account") to find unconscionability on this lower, absolute liability, standard.

(c) The Unconscionability Factor 'List'

In any event, the CPA 'list' of factors to be assessed towards a finding of 'unconscionable' representation (and thus a CPA "unfair practice") is set out following [CPA 15(2)]:
  • Reduced Capacity

    What I call "reduced capacity" occurs when the "consumer is not reasonably able to protect his or her interests because of disability, ignorance, illiteracy, inability to understand the language of an agreement or similar factors".

    The basic question here is whether the consumer's capacity to 'know what they were getting into' was impaired in anyway. If so, the idealized 'market model' of free, informed actors interacting with each other to their mutual benefit fails and intervention is warranted. Note that there is no requirement here that a consumer agreement was actually be entered into, just that a supplier representation, made intentionally or negligently, resulted in the vulnerability.

  • Price Inequity

    What I call "price inequity" occurs when, "the price grossly exceeds the price at which similar goods or services are readily available to like consumers".

    In short, was or is the price outrageous for what was being sold? Note again here that there is no requirement here that a consumer agreement was actually be entered into, just that a supplier representation embodies an extreme price disparity (ie. offered and accepted, or offered only).

  • Lack of Utility of Purchase

    What I call "lack of utility of purchase" occurs when "the consumer is unable to receive a substantial benefit from the subject-matter of the representation".

    In other words, has - or would have - the consumer purchased something useless to them? Note again that there is no requirement here that a consumer agreement actually be entered into, just that a supplier representation, made intentionally or negligently, resulted - or would have resulted if relied upon - in the lack of utility.

  • Impecuniosity

    What I call "impecuniosity" occurs when, "there is no reasonable probability of payment of the obligation in full by the consumer".

    In short, is the purchase - or would it be if made - beyond the financial means of the consumer? Again, note that there is no requirement here that a consumer agreement actually be entered into, just that a supplier representation resulted or would have resulted in the inability to fully pay for the purchase.

  • Relative Inequity

    What I call "relative inequity" occurs when "the consumer transaction is excessively one-sided in favour of someone other than the consumer".

    Here the wording suggests either a completed consumer agreement - or at least highly-imbalanced negotiations, and requires significant inequity between the bargaining power of the consumer and that of anyone else (including the supplier).

  • Absolute Inequity

    What I call "absolute inequity" occurs when "the terms of the consumer transaction are so adverse to the consumer as to be inequitable".

    This is very similar to 'relative inequity' (above), though it lacks the comparative element. Presumably it is satisfied by significant inequity to the consumer, without the need for a corresponding advantage on the other party.

  • Materially Misleading Opinion

    What I call "materially misleading opinion" occurs when "a statement of opinion is misleading and the consumer is likely to rely on it to his or her detriment".

    Again, there is no requirement here that a consumer agreement actually be entered into, just that a supplier representation was made - in the form of an opinion - that was misleading and that the consumer did rely - or may have relied on it - to their detriment. A common legal interpretation of the term 'material' when applied to a representation or contract term is that it is a feature that was pivotal to the consumer's decision to purchase.

  • Duress

    What I call "duress" occurs when "the consumer is being subjected to undue pressure to enter into a consumer transaction."

    There is no requirement here that a consumer agreement was actually be entered into, just that a supplier representation subjected the consumer to undue pressure to enter into a 'consumer transaction'.

    'Duress' arises when a person is subject to fears or concerns which are not directly related to the transaction itself, which pressure them to engage in the transaction. A person being pressured into buying a car from a dealer who also employed their son or daughter (with an implicit threat that the child's job might depend on it) might be an example.

4. Renegotiation under Duress Against Consumer Property

In the only 'unfair practice' form that is not a representation, it is an unfair practice for anyone who is in custody or control of a consumer's property to use that fact as a threat against the consumer to renegotiate the terms of a consumer agreement [CPA 16].

Instances where someone might have custody or control of a consumer's property include those where property is taken as a 'trade-in' towards a new purchase, or where the performance of services requires that a consumer's property be held by a supplier for a time (eg. repair or modification). This is also the CPA provision involved in the much-publicized cases where movers hold people's household property in order to extort more money out of them, although in some cases that situation has been
prosecuted as criminal extortion.

In many cases of a non-payment dispute the common law would entitle the possessor of the property to a lien against it (I don't spell them out here) - that is, it would legally recognize their right to hold the property as security towards payment of the 'debt'. This CPA provision makes such holding an unfair practice if the purpose is to change the contractual terms between the parties, which would include INCREASING price. So if a common law lien entitlement existed based on the
originally-negotiated pric e, it would still be valid.

In cases where a lien is asserted based on the interpretation of a non-price contract terms, or a legitimate dispute over the calculation of price, this provision suffers from uncertainty in practice as the parties will not know whether the lien-holder is attempting to change the terms of the contract until such time as a court or other adjudicator tells the parties what their rights are. In this sense, any such active dispute that ultimately resolves in favour of the consumer can be reasonably characterized as a supplier's attempt to "renegotiate the terms of a consumer transaction".

The overall effect of this provision then is to make any attempt by a supplier to assert a lien over consumer property a risky venture, and to give them an incentive to resolve the matter through the courts as a debt or damage claim rather than to resort to any 'direct action' lien rights they may have.

Continue to Rest of Chapter

Law Society Number #37308N / Website © Simon Shields 2005-2020