Richard v. Time Inc. et al., [2012] N.R. TBEd. FE.031

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Cromwell, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 18, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: [2012] N.R. TBEd. FE.031;2012 SCC 8;EYB 2012-202688;[2012] EXP 836;AZ-50834275;[2012] 1 SCR 265;JE 2012-469;[2012] SCJ No 8 (QL);211 ACWS (3d) 321;342 DLR (4th) 1;[2012] ACS no 8;427 NR 203

Richard v. Time Inc. (SCC) - Consumer law - Prohibited business practices

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for N.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la vesion anglaise]

Temp. Cite: [2012] N.R. TBEd. FE.031

Jean-Marc Richard (appellant) v. Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc. (respondents)

(33554; 2012 SCC 8; 2012 CSC 8)

Indexed As: Richard v. Time Inc. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Cromwell, JJ.

February 28, 2012.

Summary:

Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc., providers of Time magazine, mailed to Jean-Marc Richard, of Laval, Quebec, an "eye-catching" document, printed in English only, which informed him that he had won a sweepstakes grand prize of $833,337 if he had the grand prize winning entry and returned it on time, and correctly answered a skill testing question. Convinced that he was about to receive the promised $833,337, Richard immediately returned the reply coupon that was in the envelope. In doing so, Richard also subscribed to Time magazine for two years, and this entitled him to receive a free camera and photo album. Richard received the camera and photo album but not the $833,337. He contacted Time Inc. Its representative informed him that he would not be receiving a cheque for $833,337, because the document mailed to him had not contained the winning entry for the draw. The representative also said that the document was merely an invitation to participate in a sweepstakes and that "Elizabeth Matthews" did not exist. Richard filed a motion to institute proceedings against Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc. He first asked the court to declare him the winner of the $833,337. He also asked the court to order the respondents to provide him with the skill-testing question and pay him the grand prize amount. In the alternative, Richard asked the court to order the respondents to pay compensatory and punitive damages corresponding to the value of the grand prize.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported [2007] R.J.Q. 2008, allowed the action in part. The court ruled that the document contravened Title II of the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) on prohibited business practices. The court also ruled that the document contained two false representations: (1) "Elizabeth Matthews" did not exist, so she could not have "certified" the content of the document; and (2) the fact that Richard might not be the grand prize was withheld from him. The civil sanctions provided by s. 272 of the Act were available and the court ordered the respondents to pay compensatory damages of $1,000 and punitive damages of $100,000. The latter sum corresponded to a "Bonus" prize that Richard would have received if he had returned the reply coupon within five days. The court took into account the fact that the document violated the provisions of the Charter of the French Language (Que.) respecting requirements for the use of French in advertising. The respondents appealed. Richard filed an incidental appeal.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2010] R.J.Q. 3, allowed the appeal and dismissed the incidental appeal. Richard appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part. The court restored the trial judge's ruling that the document contravened Title II of the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) on prohibited business practices. The court also restored the $1,000 compensatory damage award. The court reassessed the punitive damage award at $15,000, adding that the Charter of the French Language violation should not have been taken into account. Finally, the court held that Richard was entitled to costs in the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal in accordance with the tariffs applicable in those courts, and on a solicitor and client basis in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Consumer Law - Topic 206

Consumer contracts - General - General principles and definitions - Consumer defined - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed who was the consumer in issue in Title II of the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) respecting protection against false or misleading representations - In particular, the court discussed who was the consumer in issue in s. 218, which said: "To determine whether or not a representation constitutes a prohibited practice, the general impression it gives, and, as the case may be, the literal meaning of the terms used therein must be taken into account" - The court stated the concept of the credulous and inexperienced consumer was more consistent with the Quebec legislature's objective of protecting consumers from false or misleading advertising - A court asked to assess the veracity of a commercial representation "must therefore engage, under s. 218 , in a two-step analysis that involves — having regard, provided that the representation lends itself to such an analysis, to the literal meaning of the words used by the merchant — (1) describing the general impression that the representation is likely to convey to a credulous and inexperienced consumer; and (2) determining whether that general impression is true to reality. If the answer at the second step is no, the merchant has engaged in a prohibited practice" - The court rejected defining the average consumer as having "an average level of intelligence, scepticism and curiosity" - See paragraphs 61 to 78.

Consumer Law - Topic 8002

Offences (incl. non-compliance) - General - Remedies - General - Section 272 of the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) provided that if a merchant or manufacturer failed to fulfil an obligation imposed on him by the Act, the consumer was entitled to certain contractual remedies listed in paragraphs (a) to (f) "without prejudice to his claim in damages, in all cases. He may also claim punitive damages" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the s. 272 recourse was available to a consumer to sanction a practice prohibited by the Act, provided that this be done in accordance with the principles governing the application of the Act and, where applicable, the general law - The recourse was available only to natural persons who had entered into a contract governed by the Act with a merchant or manufacturer - As for contractual remedies, the use of a prohibited practice could give rise to an absolute presumption of prejudice - A consumer would not have to prove fraud and its consequences on the basis of the ordinary rules of the civil law - The claim for compensatory damages was independent from the claim for contractual remedies and the consumer could also benefit from an absolute presumption of prejudice - Section 253, which provided for a presumption, in certain cases of prohibited practices, that a consumer would not have contracted or paid such a high price, did not limit the s. 272 recourse - Neither did s. 217, which allowed the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions to enforce the Act on a "preventive" basis - See paragraphs 90 to 139.

Consumer Law - Topic 8002

Offences (incl. non-compliance) - General - Remedies - General - Section 272 of the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) provided that if a merchant or manufacturer failed to fulfil an obligation imposed on him by the Act, the consumer was entitled to certain contractual remedies listed in paragraphs (a) to (f) "without prejudice to his claim in damages, in all cases. He may also claim punitive damages" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that consumers who exercised the s. 272 recourse could choose to claim contractual remedies, compensatory damages and punitive damages or to claim just one of those remedies - The consumer could be awarded punitive damages under s. 272 even if he was not awarded contractual remedies or compensatory damages - See paragraphs 144 to 147.

Consumer Law - Topic 8002

Offences (incl. non-compliance) - General - Remedies - General - Section 272 of the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) provided that if a merchant or manufacturer failed to fulfil an obligation imposed on him by the Act, the consumer was entitled to certain contractual remedies listed in paragraphs (a) to (f) "without prejudice to his claim in damages, in all cases. He may also claim punitive damages" - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the criteria for awarding punitive damages under s. 272 - The court stated as follows: (1) the punitive damages provided for in s. 272 had to be awarded in accordance with art. 1621 of the Civil Code of Québec and had to have a preventive objective, that is, to discourage the repetition of undesirable conduct; and (2) having regard to this objective and the objectives of the Act, violations by merchants or manufacturers that were intentional, malicious or vexatious, and conduct on their part in which they displayed ignorance, carelessness or serious negligence with respect to their obligations and consumers' rights under the Act could result in awards of punitive damages - However, before awarding such damages, the court had to consider the whole of the merchant's conduct at the time of and after the violation - See paragraphs 158 to 180.

Consumer Law - Topic 8002

Offences (incl. non-compliance) - General - Remedies - General - Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc., providers of Time magazine, mailed to Richard an "eye-catching" document which informed him that he had won a sweepstakes grand prize of $833,337 if he had the grand prize winning entry and returned it on time, and correctly answered a skill testing question - Thinking he had won the $833,337, Richard immediately returned the reply coupon - In doing so, Richard also subscribed to Time magazine for two years, and this entitled him to receive a free camera and photo album - Richard received the camera and photo album but not the $833,337 - There was no grand prize for Richard, only an invitation to participate in the sweepstakes - There was also no indication in the document that Richard might not be the grand prize winner - Richard sued, alleging that Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc. had engaged in misleading practices prohibited by the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) - Richard invoked s. 272 and claimed punitive damages - The trial judge awarded $100,000, holding that the document was "specifically designed to mislead the recipient" - The $100,000 corresponded to a "Bonus" prize that Richard would have received if he had returned the reply coupon within five days - The trial judge also took into account the fact that the document was printed in English only, contrary to the provisions of the Charter of the French Language (Que.) respecting the use of French in advertising - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge was justified in awarding punitive damages but reduced them to $15,000 - The trial judge properly took into account the fact that the defendants sent broadcast their document throughout Quebec and that their advertising campaign was profitable - However, the judge erred in taking into account the Charter of the French Language, the fact that the defendants belonged to the non-party Time Warner conglomerate and the presence of a "Bonus" prize - Also, the impact of the defendants' practices on Richard was limited though not negligible - See paragraphs 181 to 215.

Consumer Law - Topic 8145

Offences (incl. non-compliance) - Respecting business practices - Unfair practices, deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices (incl. representations) - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the provisions of Title II of the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) respecting protection against false or misleading representations - The court indicated that s. 218 guided the application of all those provisions - Section 218 said: "To determine whether or not a representation constitutes a prohibited practice, the general impression it gives, and, as the case may be, the literal meaning of the terms used therein must be taken into account" - The court stated that the phrase "literal meaning of the terms used therein" meant that every word used in a representation had to be interpreted in its ordinary sense - The purpose was to prohibit merchants from raising a defence based on a subtle, technical or convoluted meaning of a word used in a representation - As for "general impression", the court indicated that the "general impression" conveyed by a representation had to be analysed in the abstract, that is, without considering the personal attributes of the consumer who sued the merchant - The test under s. 218 was that of first impression - In the case of false or misleading advertising, the general impression was the one a person had after an initial contact with the entire advertisement, and it related to both the layout of the advertisement and the meaning of the words used - See paragraphs 44 to 60.

Consumer Law - Topic 8145

Offences (incl. non-compliance) - Respecting business practices - Unfair practices, deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices (incl. representations) - Section 219 of the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) provided that "No merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may, by any means whatever, make false or misleading representations to a consumer" - Section 228 provided that "No merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may fail to mention an important fact in any representation made to a consumer" - The publisher and marketer of Time magazine, mailed to Richard an "eye-catching" document which informed him that he had won a sweepstakes grand prize of $833,337 if he had the grand prize winning entry and returned it on time, and correctly answered a skill testing question - In fact, there was no grand prize for Richard, only an invitation to participate in the sweepstakes - There was also no indication in the document that Richard might not be the grand prize winner - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that s. 219 was violated in that the document conveyed the misleading general impression that Richard had won the grand prize - As for s. 228, the contest rules were not all apparent to someone reading the Document for the first time - These were important facts that the senders of the document were required to mention - As a result, s. 228 was also violated - See paragraphs 80 to 87.

Consumer Law - Topic 8145

Offences (incl. non-compliance) - Respecting business practices - Unfair practices, deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices (incl. representations) - Section 238(c) of the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) provided that "No merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may, falsely, by any means whatever, [...] (c) state that he has a particular status or identity" - Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc., providers of Time magazine, mailed to Richard an "eye-catching" document which informed him that he had won a sweepstakes grand prize of $833,337 if he had the grand prize winning entry and returned it on time, and correctly answered a skill testing question - The document bore the signature of "Elizabeth Matthews" - She did not exist - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that s. 238(c) was not violated - There were no false representations concerning the status or identity of the senders of the document - Also, using a fictitious person here was not prohibited by s. 238(c) - See paragraphs 88 and 89.

Consumer Law - Topic 8145

Offences (incl. non-compliance) - Respecting business practices - Unfair practices, deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices (incl. representations) - Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc., providers of Time magazine, mailed to Richard an "eye-catching" document which informed him that he had won a sweepstakes grand prize of $833,337 if he had the grand prize winning entry and returned it on time, and correctly answered a skill testing question - Thinking he had won the $833,337, Richard immediately returned the reply coupon - In doing so, Richard also subscribed to Time magazine for two years, and this entitled him to receive a free camera and photo album - Richard received the camera and photo album but not the $833,337 - There was no grand prize for Richard, only an invitation to participate in the sweepstakes - There was also no indication in the document that Richard might not be the grand prize winner - Richard sued, alleging that Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc. had engaged in misleading practices prohibited by the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) - Richard invoked s. 272 and claimed compensatory damages - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial judge's award of $1,000, holding as follows: "To establish the respondents' extracontractual liability, the appellant had to show that they had engaged in a prohibited practice. He then had to prove that he had seen the representation constituting a prohibited practice before the contract was formed, amended or performed and that a sufficient nexus existed between the representation and the goods or services covered by the contract. If these facts were proven, the absolute presumption of prejudice would apply and the respondents' extracontractual liability would be triggered for the purposes of s. 272 [...] The appellant did prove this. We have already found that the respondents contravened ss. 219 and 228 [...] Whether the appellant saw the representations in question does not present any problems, since it is common ground that he subscribed to Time magazine after reading the documentation the respondents had sent him. Finally, there is no doubt that a sufficient nexus existed between the content of the Document and Time magazine: not only did the Document promote the magazine directly, but the trial judge found that the appellant would not have subscribed to the magazine had he not read the misleading documentation [...] As a result, we find that the appellant has discharged his burden of proving a sufficient nexus between the prohibited practices engaged in by the respondents and his subscription contract with the respondents. This means that for the purposes of s. 272 [...], the Document is deemed to have had a fraudulent effect on the appellant's decision to subscribe to Time magazine. The conduct of the respondents that is in issue constitutes a civil fault" - See paragraphs 90 to 142.

Practice - Topic 7458.1

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement to solicitor and client costs - Novel or important point - Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc., providers of Time magazine, mailed to Richard an "eye-catching" document which informed him that he had won a sweepstakes grand prize of $833,337 if he had the grand prize winning entry and returned it on time, and correctly answered a skill testing question - Thinking he had won the $833,337, Richard immediately returned the reply coupon - In doing so, Richard also subscribed to Time magazine for two years, and this entitled him to receive a free camera and photo album - Richard received the camera and photo album but not the $833,337 - There was no grand prize for Richard, only an invitation to participate in the sweepstakes - There was also no indication in the document that Richard might not be the grand prize winner - Richard sued, alleging that Time Inc. and Time Consumer Marketing Inc. had engaged in misleading practices prohibited by the Consumer Protection Act (Que.) - Richard invoked s. 272, sued, and on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, was awarded compensatory and punitive damages - The court also awarded Richard costs on a solicitor-client basis because of the importance of the issues of law he raised before it - See paragraph 216.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 7024

Costs - Entitlement - Lawyer-client costs - [See Practice - Topic 7458.1 ].

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 3401

Damages - Punitive or exemplary damages - Entitlement - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the general criteria for awarding punitive damages under Quebec civil law - The court stated as follows: (1) punitive damages could be awarded only if a legislative provision authorized them; (2) once such an enabling provision was identified, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff had the interest required to make a claim under that provision; (3) the court was bound by any criteria established in the enabling provision; (4) absent criteria in the enabling provision, the court had to consider the general provisions of art. 1621 of the Civil Code of Quebec and the objectives of the enabling statute; and (5) the court had to identify the conduct to be sanctioned to discourage its repetition - The court had to determine (a) whether the conduct was incompatible with the objectives of the enabling legislation, and (b) whether it interfered with the achievement of those objectives - See paragraphs 148 to 157, 179.

Cases Noticed:

Nichols v. Toyota Drummondville (1982) inc. [1995] R.J.Q. 746 (C.A.), consd. [para. 21].

Prebushewski v. Dodge City Auto (1984) Ltd. et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 649; 333 N.R. 201; 262 Sask.R. 281; 347 W.A.C. 281, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Colgate-Palmolive Ltd., [1970] 1 C.C.C. 100 (Ont. Co. Ct.), consd. [para. 43].

Québec (Procureur général) v. Distribution Canovex Inc., [1996] J.Q. No. 5302, (C.Q., Crim. and Pen. Div.), refd to. [para. 49].

Option Consommateurs v. Brick Warehouse, l.p., 2011 QCCS 569, refd to. [para. 49].

Tremblay v. Ameublements Tanguay inc., 2011 QCCS 3078, refd to. [para. 49].

Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot ltée et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 824; 349 N.R. 111; 2006 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 57].

Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 387; 416 N.R. 307; 2011 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 57].

Mattel Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 772; 348 N.R. 340; 2006 SCC 22, consd. [para. 65].

R. v. Imperial Tobacco Products Ltd., [1971] 5 W.W.R. 409 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 69].

Québec (Procureur général) c. Louis Bédard Inc., 1986 CarswellQue 981 (C.S.P.), refd to. [para. 69].

Turgeon c. Germain Pelletier Ltée, [2001] R.J.Q. 291 (C.A.), consd. [para. 69].

Riendeau v. Brault & Martineau inc., [2007] R.J.Q. 2620; 2007 QCCS 4603, affd., [2010] R.J.Q. 507; 2010 QCCA 366, refd to. [para. 70].

Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada, [2009] R.J.Q. 1746; 2009 QCCS 2695, refd to. [para. 70].

Marcotte v. Banque de Montréal, 2009 QCCS 2764, refd to. [para. 70].

Marcotte v. Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, 2009 QCCS 2743, refd to. [para. 70].

Chrysler Canada ltée v. Poulin, [1988] J.Q. No. 1683 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

A.C.E.F. Sud-Ouest de Montréal v. Arrangements alternatifs de crédit du Québec Inc., [1994] R.J.Q. 114 (Sup. Ct), refd to. [para. 92].

Beauchamp v. Relais Toyota inc., [1995] R.J.Q. 741 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

Centre d'économie en chauffage Turcotte inc. v. Ferland, [2003] J.Q. No. 18096, refd to. [para. 92].

9029-4596 Québec Inc. v. Duplantie, [1999] R.J.Q. 3059 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 92].

Banque de Montréal c. Boissonneault, [1988] R.J.Q. 2622; 18 Q.A.C. 137 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 112].

Service aux marchands détaillants Ltée (Household Finance) v. Option Consommateurs, 2006 QCCA 1319, refd to. [para. 113].

Ata v. 9118-8169 Québec inc., [2006] R.J.Q. 1883; 2006 QCCS 3777, refd to. [para. 115].

Chartier c. Meubles Léon Ltée, [2003] J.Q. No. 842 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 120].

Kingsway Financial Services Inc. v. 118997 Canada inc., [1999] J.Q. No. 5922 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 127].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 143].

H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 143].

De Montigny v. Brossard (Succession), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 64; 408 N.R. 80; 2010 SCC 51, consd. [para. 146].

St-Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de services publics Inc. (C.S.N.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345; 198 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 146].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 148].

Vorvis v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085; 94 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 148].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595; 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 148].

Lambert v. Minerve Canada, compagnie de transport aérien inc., [1998] R.J.Q. 1740 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 164].

Lafontaine v. La Source d'eau Val-d'Or inc., 2001 CanLII 10566 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 164].

Jabraian v. Trévi Fabrication Inc., 2005 CanLII 10580 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 164].

Santangeli v. 154995 Canada Inc., 2005 CanLII 32103 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 164].

Martin v. Rénovations métropolitaines (Québec) ltée, 2006 QCCQ 1760, refd to. [para. 164].

Darveau v. 9034-9770 Québec inc., 2005 CanLII 41136 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 164].

Gastonguay v. Entreprises D. L. Paysagiste, 2004 CanLII 31925 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 171].

Mathurin v. 3086-9069 Québec Inc., 2003 CanLII 19131 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 171].

Systèmes Techno-Pompes inc. v. Tremblay, [2006] R.J.Q. 1791; 2006 QCCA 987, consd. [para. 172].

Champagne v. Toitures Couture et Associés Inc., [2002] R.J.Q. 2863 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 173].

Québec (Curateur public) v. Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St-Ferdinand et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 211; 202 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 189].

Landry c. Quesnel, [2002] R.J.Q. 80 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 189].

Provigo Distribution inc. c. Supermarcé A.R.G. inc. [1998] R.J.Q. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

Genex Communications inc. v. Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, [2009] R.J.Q. 2743; 2009 QCCA 2201, refd to. [para. 200].

Fondation québécoise du cancer v. Patenaude, [2007] R.R.A. 5; 2006 QCCA 1554, refd to. [para. 200].

Voltec ltée v. CJMF FM ltée, [2002] R.R.A. 1078 (C.A. Que.), refd to. [para. 200].

Québec (Procureur général) c. Boisclair, [2001] R.J.Q. 2449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 200].

Augustus v. Gosset, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 268; 202 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 202].

Lambert c. Macara, [2004] R.J.Q. 2637 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 202].

McCullock-Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17; 321 N.R. 361; 2004 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 216].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Code of Québec, L.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1621 [para. 150].

Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. P-40.1, sect. 1(e) [para. 105]; sect. 2 [para. 104]; sect. 8, sect. 9 [para. 130]; sect. 217 [para. 102]; sect. 218 [para. 45]; sect. 219 [para. 44]; sect. 228, sect. 238(c) [para. 88]; sect. 253 [para. 129]; sect. 272 [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, Rapport général, in Travaux de l’Association Henri Capitant des amis de la culture juridique française (1975), t. 24, pp. 3 [para. 37]; 4 [paras. 35, 37].

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, and Deslauriers, Patrice, La responsabilité civile (7th Ed. 2007), vol. I, Principes généraux, para. 1-364 [para. 150].

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, and Jobin, Pierre-Gabriel, with Vézina, Nathalie, Les obligations (6th Ed. 2005), para. 912 [paras. 199, 200].

Belobaba, Edward P., Unfair Trade Practices Legislation: Symbolism and Substance in Consumer Protection (1977), 15 Osgoode Hall L.J. 327, pp. 356 to 357 [para. ].

Couture, Luc-André, Rapport sur la protection du consommateur au niveau fédéral en droit pénal canadien, in Travaux de l’Association Henri Capitant des amis de la culture juridique française, t. 24 (1975) p. 307 [para. 34].

Dallaire, Claude, La gestion d’une réclamation en dommages exemplaires: éléments essentiels à connaître quant à la nature et l’objectif de cette réparation, les éléments de procédure et de preuve incontournables ainsi que l’évaluation du quantum, in Barreau du Québec, Congrès annuel (2007), Tous ensemble, pp. 127 et seq. [para. 200]; 131 to 133 [para. 205]; 136 to 142, 164 to 165 [para. 207]; 168 [para. 189].

Dumais, Claude-René, Une étude des tenants et aboutissants des articles 271 et 272 de la Loi sur la protection du consommateur (1985), 26 C. de D. 763, p 775. [para. 95].

L’Heureux, Nicole, Droit de la consommation (5th Ed. 2000), pp. 235 [para. 135]; 347 [para. 49]; 358 [para. 94].

L’Heureux, Nicole, L’interprétation de l’article 272 de la Loi sur la protection du consommateur (1982), 42 R. du B. 455, generally [para. 94].

L’Heureux, Nicole, and Lacoursière, Marc, Droit de la consommation (6th Ed. 2011), pp. 1 to 4 [para. 36]; 25, 26 to 31 [para. 160]; 443 et seq. [para. 175]; 479 [para. 160]; 489 [para. 137]; 489 to 490 [para. 49]; 620 and 621 [para. 113]; 630 [para. 165].

Lebeau, Françoise, La publicité et la protection des consommateurs (1981), 41 R. du B. 1016, p. 1020 [para. 114]; 1039. [para. 95].

Lluelles, Didier, Moore, Benoît, Droit des obligations (2006), pp. 312 [paras. 115, 131]; 316 [para. 95]; 321 [para. 127].

Masse, Claude, Loi sur la protection du consommateur: analyse et commentaires (1999), pp. 28 to 29 [para. 139]; 72 [para. 104]; 828 [paras. 51, 69]; 835 [para. 95]; 1000 [para. 170].

Nahmiash, Laurent, Le recours collectif et la Loi sur la protection du consommateur: le dol éclairé et non préjudiciable — l’apparence de droit illusoire, in Développements récents sur les recours collectifs (2004), p. 75 [para. 116].

Roy, Pauline, Les dommages exemplaires en droit québécois: instrument de revalorisation de la responsabilité civile, thèse de doctorat, Université de Montréal (1995), p. 466 [para. 160]; 474 [para. 107]; 476 [paras. 96, 97].

Counsel:

Hubert Sibre, Annie Claude Beauchemin and Jean-Yves Fortin, for the appellant;

Pascale Cloutier and Fadi Amine, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record :

Davis, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellant;

Miller Thomson Pouliot, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on January 18, 2011, by McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages by LeBel and Cromwell, JJ., jointly, on February 28, 2012.