2 total
The court imposed significant fines and probation, but declined to order custodial sentences, for electrical contractors convicted of consumer protection offences.
Four defendants—two individuals and two corporations—were convicted of multiple offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 for failing to provide proper direct agreements, engaging in unfair practices through false representations, and failing to provide refunds to consumers.
The prosecution sought custodial sentences for the individuals and substantial fines for the corporations.
The court rejected custodial sentences, finding that while the conduct was blameworthy, it did not rise to the level of intentional fraud seen in comparable cases where contractors absconded with deposits or provided no work.
Instead, the court imposed significant fines, probation with restitution conditions, and additional restrictions on the primary offender.
An electrical contractor and its directors were convicted under the Consumer Protection Act for failing to provide proper direct agreements and engaging in unfair practices.
This regulatory prosecution concerned allegations that electrical contractors and their principals breached Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act, 2002 in home-service transactions.
The court considered whether the consumer contracts were direct agreements, whether required contract terms and cancellation rights were provided, whether refunds were owed, and whether misleading representations were made.
After a lengthy trial, the court found the prosecution had proved offences against some or all of the defendants under the consumer protection regime.
The decision interprets the Act broadly as consumer-protection legislation applying to in-home electrical service agreements.
