Consumer protection

Flying Fair? SCC Weighs in on International Air Transportation Association v Canada

Airline passengers in Canada recently scored an important win regarding consumer protection. In International Air Transportation Association v Canada (Transportation Agency), 2024 SCC 30 [International Air], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) unanimously held that the Canada Transportation Agency’s (the “Agency”) Air Passenger Protection Regulations, SOR/2019-150 [Regulations] were valid regulations that did not violate the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, 2242 UNTS 309 [Montreal Convention].

APPEAL WATCH: Lights, Camera, Action - Competition Tribunal applies drip pricing provision

In Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Cineplex Inc., 2024 Comp Trib 5 [Cineplex], the Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal”) levied penalties of nearly $40 million dollars against Cineplex Inc., finding that Cineplex Inc. made price misrepresentations through its digital ticket purchasing platforms. The decision marks the first contested proceeding involving the recently enacted “drip pricing” deceptive marketing […]

A Valid Arbitration Agreement is a Valid Arbitration Agreement

Consumers sign contracts to gain access to all kinds of goods and services, such as credit cards, cell-phone service, and internet. Increasingly, sellers and suppliers are putting arbitration clauses into these contracts, requiring buyers to resolve their disputes through arbitration. This is not necessarily because sellers are enamoured with the virtues of arbitration. Instead, they […]

Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Chatr Wireless Inc.: True Claims, but Inadequate Testing

On February 21, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision regarding remedies in Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v Chatr Wireless Inc., 2014 ONSC 1146 [Chatr]. This case stemmed from allegations by the Commissioner of Competition against Chatr Wireless Inc. (“Chatr Wireless”) in relation to claims made by the telecommunications company about it […]

Credulous Consumers and ‘Strange Collections of Affirmations and Restrictions’: A Case Comment on Richard v. Time Inc.

Generally speaking, advertisers are in the business of making promises. Occasionally, it falls on courts to determine when businesses will be held to the promises they make, even if they had no intention of keeping them. In Leonard v. PepsiCo Inc., 88 F Supp 2d 116, a favourite of first year contracts students, the US […]

Proposed Securities Act May Create a More Investor-Friendly and Efficient Canadian Securities Trade

Last week, The Court discussed the constitutionality of the proposed federal Securities Act. This second post discusses the potential effects that the Act may have on the securities trade in Canada. In a move to address systemic inconsistencies in Canadian securities regulation, the federal government recently drafted a federal Securities Act, intended to coordinate and […]

The Fake Rolex Has to Go as Per Canadian Courts…

The pirated DVDs? The fake Coach purse? The imitation I-Pod? Hide them. Burn them. Throw them away. Courts have brought the full wrath of law on those dealing in counterfeit goods in the form on substantial damage awards. Starting with Microsoft Corp v. 9038-3746 Quebec Inc., 2006 FC 1509, all the way to the most […]

Re Metcalfe and Mansfield Alternative Investments II Corp.: Can a CCAA plan contain a release of claims against third-party financial institutions?

On September 2, 2008, various holders of Asset Back Commercial Paper notes, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments II Corp, (Re), 2008 ONCA 587 [Metcalfe]. following the Ontario Court of Appeal’s approval of a Plan of Compromise and Agreement, which takes away the ABCP holders’ rights […]

Québec v. Proprio Direct Inc.: Administrative Law in the Post-Dunsmuir Era

The Supreme Court's decision last March in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 was widely recognized as a watershed event in Supreme Court jurisprudence. Indeed, even for those not steeped in administrative law, Dunsmuir appreciably changed the optics of judicial review; the court not only eschewed the much maligned 'patent unreasonableness' standard of review, […]

In flies, psychological injury and remoteness of damages: how Mustapha v. Culligan settles the score.

If there was any opportunity for the Supreme Court to revise some of the basic tort rules, it was remised in Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd, 2008 SCC 27. Perhaps the case turned out as it did because psychological harm is not truly synonymous with physical harm despite the judges’ proclamations (in para 8). […]