FILE NUMBERS: Oral Decision

HEARING DATE: June 18, 2008

IN THE MATTER OF THE MOTOR DEALER ACT R.S.B.C.1996 C.316 AND
THE BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT S.B.C. 2004 c.2

COMPLAINANT: ISABELLE FRAY

MOTOR DEALER and/or SALESPERSON: AUTOLEASEBC ONLINE INC. (Dealer #10989)

ISSUE:

• Dealership was called to a hearing under Sections 5 and 6 of the Motor Dealer Act and/or Sections 154, 155 and 164 of the BPCPA the dealer.
• On or about July 1, 2006, it is alleged that the dealer failed to comply with Section 4(3)(a)(ii) of the BPCPA - a representation by a supplier that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model if they are not, specially that a 2002 Nissan Pathfinder sold to Isabelle Fray was represented as having sustained minor damages requiring repairs when in fact the damages sustained was $22,053.82.
• On or about July 1, 2006, it is alleged that the dealer failed to comply with Section 4(3)(b)(vi) of the BPCPA – a representation by a supplier that uses exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity about a material fact or that fails to state a material fact, if the effect is misleading, specifically a 2002 Nissan Pathfinder as having sustained minor damage requiring repairs when in fact the damage sustained was $22,053.82.

OUTCOME:

• The evidence presented showed that the sale was not from Isabelle Fray but from AutoleaseBC Online Incorporated to Taha Contracting. Under the definition of “sale” which is applicable in the MDA it means “a lease, exchange or other disposition or supply of a motor vehicle to an individual primarily for that individual’s personal or family use.” The definition is clear – it’s the use that’s important, it’s not who it’s sold to.
• The Registrar’s jurisdiction over matters is for consumer transactions, not for business-to-business transactions.
• Based on evidence presented, the Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. The claim was dismissed.

COMPLETE DECISION: Noted above

Top