Canadian Lawyer InHouse

June/July 2020

Legal news and trends for Canadian in-house counsel and c-suite executives

Issue link: http://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/1260137

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 9 of 35

8 www.canadianlawyermag.com/inhouse QUEBEC Advertising credit in Quebec: Merchants, beware! The Court of Appeal of Quebec rendered an important decision in consumer protection law, writes Vincent de l'Étoile THE DISPUTE: Meubles Léon v. Option consommateurs Leon's Furniture is a furniture and appli- ance retailer offering various financing options to buyers of its products, such as "no payments, no interest until later" or "equal payments for a certain number of months with no interest." After a class action was filed in 2009, the Superior Court found that advertisements for the retailer were misleading because they did not disclose the annual fees or taxes payable in certain circumstances. In addition, the court concluded that advertise- ments contravened the requirements of the Consumer Protection Act in relation to the advertisement of credit (s. 244, CPA) and the mandatory disclosure of the terms and conditions of credit (s. 245, CPA). As a result, Leon's was ordered to pay $896,718 in damages to customers who purchased products under one of the financing plans offered in certain adver- tisements, as well as $1 million in punitive damages and $495,000 to pay for the plain- tiff's legal fees. In January, the Court of Appeal of Quebec rendered its judgment. The Court of Appeal upheld the conclusions of the Superior Court regarding Leon's breaches of the CPA with respect to credit advertising. However, considering a release from another litiga- tion capturing the class members and the insufficient proof of the damages allegedly sustained — the mere frustration arising from a breach of the law does not meet the threshold for damages to be awarded — Leon's condemnation was reduced to $162,918, plus an amount of $85 as punitive damages for a specific client. The absence of an established violation of the Competition Act and the lack of a clear legal basis also led the Court of Appeal to set aside the condemnation to compensate the plaintiffs for its legal fees. Advertising credit: a new framework? The rules pertaining to credit advertising are set out in the CPA in Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act (the Regulation). These provisions capture the following types of credit advertising: a) An advertisement concerning a product or service that informs the consumer of the availability of credit (CPA, s. 244); i. Such advertising can only disclose the availability of credit by indicating the name, trademark or corporate symbol of a merchant that enters into credit contracts, by using the expressions "credit offered," "credit accepted" or "credit available" or by illustrating a credit card (regulation, s. 80); b) Advertising concerning credit (CPA, s. 245) and advertising concerning the terms and conditions of credit (CPA, s. 247); i. Such advertising must include mandatory information regarding the credit terms, including the credit rate, applicable fees, payment periods and other strict requirements (regulation, ss. 81 to 86). According to the Court of Appeal, these types of advertising and their corresponding requirements are mutually exclusive; i.e., one type of credit-related advertising cannot include references to other types of adver- tising and vice versa. Indeed, the court found that Leon's adver- tisements for its products and disclosing the availability of credit also contained various mentions pertaining to credit beyond that which is permitted by the CPA, also having the effect of attracting clients to its stores by promising them the postponement or spreading of their payments. In practice, the Court of Appeal's decision means that an advertisement for a product or service can only disclose the availability of credit by strictly abiding by the requirements of s. 80 of the regulation, above, without including any other information regarding the terms and conditions of the credit. Conversely, an advertisement concerning credit or its terms and conditions must include the mandatory content set out in the regulation, without illustrating the product or service that may be acquired or financed with the said credit. Conclusion The decision in Meubles Léon may bring significant changes to the way credit is advertised and to the content of such adver- tisements, given that the usual advertising practices of various merchants may not fully abide by the strict framework being imposed by the Court of Appeal. Of course, the advertising requirements of the CPA apply regardless of medium and include all types of advertising, whether print, television, radio, digital or other. An application for leave to appeal the deci- sion has been filed to the Supreme Court of Canada, such that further novel development in relation to the advertisement of credit may ensue. Vincent de l'Étoile is a partner at Langlois lawyers LLP in Montreal. He specializes mainly in matters relating to civil and commercial litigation, class actions, product liability and consumer law

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Lawyer InHouse - June/July 2020