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 - Financial Institutions - Credit Cards - Did the Court of Appeal err when it held that the Respondent’s currency conversion fees were not credit charges within the meaning of ss. 69 and 70 of the Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q., c. P-40.1 (the “CPA”)? - Did the Court of Appeal err in stating in obiter that the violation of the CPA was covered by section 271 of this act? - On the issue of prescription, did the Court of Appeal err in finding in obiter that a new contract is not formed under the CPA when a new credit card is issued to the consumer? - Subsidiarily, can a fee schedule which is inaccessible when the contract is formed constitute an opposable external clause?

Constitutional Law - Interjurisdictional Immunity - Federal Paramountcy - Financial Institutions - Credit Cards - Consumer Protection - Applicability and Operability of the CPA in conjunction with Bank Act, S.C. 1991, c. 46, as am. and the Cost of Borrowing (Banks) Regulations, SOR/2001-101, as am. - Is the legal characterization of a transaction consisting in payment for a good or service in foreign currency by means of a credit card of the same nature as that of a payment by means of a bill of exchange over which Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction under s. 91(18) of the Constitution Act, 1867? - Are ss. 12, 68 to 72, 83, 91, 92, 126 and 127 of the Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q., c. P-40.1, and ss. 55 to 61 and 64 of the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act, R.R.Q., c. P-40.1, r. 3, constitutionally inapplicable to the billing of foreign currency conversion fees by reason of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity in view of Parliament’s exclusive jurisdiction over bills of exchange and promissory notes? - Are ss. 12, 68 to 72, 83, 91, 92, 126 and 127 of the Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q., c. P-40.1, and ss. 55 to 61 and 64 of the Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act, R.R.Q., c. P-40.1, r. 3, constitutionally inoperative in relation to the billing of foreign currency conversion fees by reason of the doctrine of federal paramountcy in view of Parliament’s exclusive jurisdiction over bills of exchange and promissory notes?

In the context of this class action, the representative plaintiff alleged that the Respondent breached the CPA by failing to disclose foreign exchange conversion charges on credit cards as a “credit charge”. The CPA requires that all “credit charges” be included as part of the “credit rate” and disclosed to cardholders as an annual percentage. The representative plaintiff further alleged that as a “credit charge”, foreign exchange charges were subject to the CPA’s 21-day “grace period” and hence could not be imposed to consumers who paid their balance within the grace period. Finally, it was also contended that during certain periods, the Respondent did not disclose the foreign exchange conversion charge separately, thereby triggering liability for restitution and punitive damages under the CPA. All of these allegations were denied by the Respondent, who maintained that foreign exchange conversion charges are not “credit charges” within the meaning of the CPA. Rather, it was contended that the charges at issue are part of the “net capital”, and are accordingly not subject to the provisions of the CPA regarding the manner in which the credit rate must be disclosed. Alternatively, on the basis of the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament over bills of exchange and promissory notes, the Respondent contended that the sections of the CPA in dispute are constitutionally inapplicable under the interjurisdictional immunity doctrine, and otherwise inoperative under the paramountcy doctrine.