5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Consumer Protection from Deceptive and Unconscionable Acts (11:IV)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Consumer Protection from Deceptive and Unconscionable Acts (11:IV) (view source)
Revision as of 20:24, 12 August 2020
, 20:24, 12 August 2020→3. Injunction, Declaration and Class Action
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
The ''BPCPA'' stipulates that while the Provincial Court has jurisdiction for civil actions under s 171, actions under s 172 must be brought in Supreme Court. | The ''BPCPA'' stipulates that while the Provincial Court has jurisdiction for civil actions under s 171, actions under s 172 must be brought in Supreme Court. | ||
For an example of a class action suit dealing with the ''BPCPA'', see ''Dahl v Royal Bank of Canada'', 2006 BCCA 369. Credit card debtors brought a class action suit against the Royal Bank of Canada, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and the Bank of Montreal. In the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim, they asserted that the defendants failed to disclose the true cost of borrowing by providing the transaction dates for cash advances on their monthly statements rather than the posting dates (the dates the money was actually advanced), allowing more interest to be charged; the court, however, ultimately rejected this argument. | For an example of a class action suit dealing with the ''BPCPA'', see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2006/2006bcca369/2006bcca369.html?autocompleteStr=Dahl%20v%20royal%20bank%20&autocompletePos=2 Dahl v Royal Bank of Canada]'', 2006 BCCA 369. Credit card debtors brought a class action suit against the Royal Bank of Canada, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and the Bank of Montreal. In the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim, they asserted that the defendants failed to disclose the true cost of borrowing by providing the transaction dates for cash advances on their monthly statements rather than the posting dates (the dates the money was actually advanced), allowing more interest to be charged; the court, however, ultimately rejected this argument. | ||
In any action for permanent injunction under s 172(1)(b), the court may restore to any interested person any property or money acquired by deception or unconscionable acts or practices by the supplier (s 172(3)(a)), and may require the supplier to advertise to the public in a way that will assure prompt and reasonable communication to consumers (s 172(3)(c)). | In any action for permanent injunction under s 172(1)(b), the court may restore to any interested person any property or money acquired by deception or unconscionable acts or practices by the supplier (s 172(3)(a)), and may require the supplier to advertise to the public in a way that will assure prompt and reasonable communication to consumers (s 172(3)(c)). | ||
