CommentStreams:8aecd4085f765dbd2d35d5f8ea6a1de1

2023-11-25T00:22:19Z

154.5.42.164:

This statement is incorrect:

“Under the Act, if there is a successful prosecution of a seller, any consumer affected by the seller’s conduct may have a civil remedy against the seller for any losses suffered (see section 36).”

IF introduces a condition. This literally says that a “successful prosecution of a seller” is a precondition to seek a civil remedy by a consumer. This is false and the interpretation of the Act provided here is wrong. No such precondition exists and a successful prosecution is not a requirement to be met before an action can be initiated by a consumer. Where exactly in the Act did you read this?

What section 36 says is that ANY CONSUMER affected by a seller’s conduct may sue for damages in any court of competent jurisdiction. The consumer does NOT need to prove a prosecution has occurred or that it has been successful. The consumer civil action is independent from the criminal action from the Competition Bureau.

All the consumer needs to prove is that “conduct contrary to any provision of Part VI of the Act” has occurred to have a cause of action. The consumer cannot prosecute the criminal action, but it can certainly seek civil redress. It needs not necessarily have been affected by it.

Any evidence of prior proceedings (if they exist) CAN be used as evidence in the civil lawsuit by the consumer and evidence to prove the claim.

The preservation of the consumer’s right to a civil action is explicitly contemplated on Part VI, Section 62:

Civil rights not affected
62 Except as otherwise provided in this Part, nothing in this Part shall be construed as depriving any person of any civil right of action.
{{DISPLAYTITLE:
Inaccurate legal information - “Under the Act, if there is a successful prosecution of a seller..."
}}

Clicklaw Wikibooks - User contributions [en]

CommentStreams:8aecd4085f765dbd2d35d5f8ea6a1de1