Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Consumer protection - Advertising - Misleading advertising - Sweepstake - Whether Court of Appeal modified tests for determining average consumer used in interpreting sections of Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q., c. P 40.1, and, if so, what those tests are now - Having regard to applicable average consumer test, whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that Respondents had not violated Consumer Protection Act and therefore were not required to pay damages - Whether Court of Appeal should have intervened in determination of quantum of punitive damages awarded under s. 272 of Consumer Protection Act and in determination of award of costs.

In 1999, Mr. Richard received an envelope sent by the Respondents that contained documents in English, one of which was entitled “Official Sweepstake Notification”. After reading the documents, Mr. Richard concluded that he had won US$833,337. He filled out the reply coupon and subscribed to Time magazine. Since he did not receive his prize, he contacted Time and found out that he would not be receiving a cheque because he did not have the winning number. He also learned that the person who had signed the documents as the sweepstake manager did not exist. Time explained to him that the documents were merely an invitation to participate in the sweepstake and that he could win only if he had received the “Grand Prize Winning Entry” (which was not the case) and had returned it in time. Mr. Richard therefore brought an action in damages against the Respondents alleging breach of contractual obligations and violations of the Consumer Protection Act.

The trial judge dismissed the portion of the action based on contractual liability, finding that it was impossible to conclude from a literal reading of the document at issue that it contained an unconditional offer to pay US$833,337. However, she held that the document contained several false representations within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and had been written with the intent to mislead readers. In her opinion, the general impression that an average consumer would have from the document was that the recipient had won a large prize, which was not necessarily the case. She therefore ordered the Respondents to pay Mr. Richard $1,000 in moral damages and $100,000 in exemplary damages. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding that the document contained no false or misleading representations. In its opinion, an average consumer reading the document at issue would have understood that it was merely an [TRANSLATION] “advertising game”.