Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff alleged breach of contract over a car dealership's failure to promptly pay off a loan from a trade-in deal.

• Claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and discrimination were raised without sufficient factual support.

• The dealership asserted that the loan was paid, and a replacement cheque was gratuitously issued.

• Plaintiff claimed coercion by an RCMP officer who allegedly pressured her to accept the cheque.

• Court found the dealership’s conduct fell under the jurisdiction of the Motor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund (MDCCF).

• All claims were dismissed, and costs were awarded to both the dealership and the RCMP officer.

Facts and outcome of the case

Hoi Ting Yeung, a self-represented plaintiff, filed a civil action against 1353202 BC Ltd. (operating as Go Richmond Chrysler) and several associated individuals after trading in a vehicle and later discovering that her original auto loan had not been paid off as expected. The dealership had allegedly issued a cheque to RBC Auto Finance, but the plaintiff claimed she continued to be charged for the old vehicle loan, leading to distress and confusion. She alleged she was misled, defrauded, and discriminated against, and that she was coerced into accepting a reimbursement cheque by an RCMP officer called to the dealership.

The dealership maintained that the cheque had been properly sent to RBC via Purolator and that the issue arose because RBC misplaced the payment. After RBC located the cheque, they reversed the charges. The dealership then issued a goodwill cheque to the plaintiff for the inconvenience. When the plaintiff arrived at the dealership to dispute the situation, tensions escalated and police were called. The plaintiff also contacted 911. Upon arrival, the RCMP officers, including Constable V. Lee, interacted with the plaintiff, who claimed she was threatened with arrest unless she accepted the cheque.

The court conducted a summary trial on March 12, 2025. Justice Thomas dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims. The court found that while there may have been a delay in loan payment, there was no legal or factual basis for claims of fraud or discrimination. The plaintiff’s breach of contract argument was acknowledged but redirected to the jurisdiction of the Motor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund (MDCCF), which handles such consumer dealership disputes. Additionally, the court found no actionable wrongdoing by Constable V. Lee, noting that police officers owe no specific duty to an individual plaintiff in these circumstances unless damages result, which they did not.

The result was a full dismissal of the claim. The RCMP were awarded $967 in costs, and the dealership defendants were entitled to costs as well, though the specific amount was not specified.