Jeanne Eugenia Chiang

The Ministry charged a construction company, its director, and its representative with multiple strict liability offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, following a consumer complaint about an abandoned basement renovation.

The court found that the defendants failed to provide a proper direct agreement, engaged in unfair practices by making false representations about returning to work, and failed to refund the consumer after the agreement was cancelled.

The defendants' due diligence defence, which relied on claims of contracting COVID-19 and government stay-at-home orders, was rejected.

Convictions were entered on all remaining counts.

The applicant brought an application against the respondents.

The court previously determined that one of the respondents was a party under disability and adjourned the matter pending the appointment of a litigation guardian.

At a subsequent case conference, the court was advised that no litigation guardian had been appointed.

The court ordered that the application remain adjourned sine die until a litigation guardian is appointed, and scheduled a further case conference.

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.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to cross‑examine opposing counsel on an affidavit filed in support of a proposed summary judgment motion.

The underlying action involved a slip and fall where the plaintiff had already agreed to dismiss the claim against certain defendants, leaving only the issue of costs in dispute.

The court held that a summary judgment motion was not appropriate where dismissal had already been agreed to and only costs remained.

Because the proposed cross‑examination related solely to costs issues outside the proper scope of the affidavit and motion, the requested examination was not warranted.

The motion was dismissed, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.