Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jean-François Nadon claimed $1,723.48 from Univers Traction Sports Inc. for transport and preparation fees added to his bill that were not included in the advertised price.
• Central to the dispute was whether charging fees beyond the advertised price violates Article 224(c) of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act.
• Univers posted a Marketplace advertisement listing the Argo Frontier 650 8x8 starting at $14,999, with taxes, transport, and preparation noted as extra.
• At the time of sale, $1,499 plus applicable taxes were added to the purchase price for transport and preparation fees.
• Corporate liability was limited to Univers alone, as no evidence supported piercing the corporate veil to hold shareholder and administrator Dave Ouellet personally responsible.
• Nadon's prior awareness of the additional fees before signing did not bar his claim, as knowledge of extra charges does not excuse a merchant's failure to include them in the advertised price.

Facts of the case

Jean-François Nadon filed a claim before the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec against Univers Traction Sports Inc. (Univers) and Dave Ouellet, seeking $1,723.48 representing transport and preparation fees — along with applicable taxes — that were added to his invoice and which, he argued, were not lawfully chargeable on top of the advertised price. Nadon relied on the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (L.p.c.). For their part, Univers and Ouellet maintained that all new vehicles necessarily carry transport and preparation fees, and that Nadon had been informed of these charges before signing the sales contract and accepted them with full knowledge.

Contractual and statutory provisions at issue

The advertisement posted on Marketplace by Ouellet described the Argo Frontier 650 8x8 as starting at $14,999, with a note at the bottom stating: "Taxes, transport et préparation en sus" (taxes, transport and preparation extra). The amount for transport and preparation was not specified in the advertisement. Upon signing, $1,499 plus applicable taxes were added to the price for those fees. Nadon expressed his disagreement with paying these fees before signing. The key statutory provision was Article 224(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits any merchant from charging a price higher than the advertised price. The Act further specifies that the advertised price must reflect the total amount the consumer will have to pay to obtain the good, though it may exclude Quebec sales tax and the federal goods and services tax.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court first disposed of the claim against Dave Ouellet. As a shareholder and administrator of Univers, Ouellet benefits from the separate legal personality of the corporation. Personal liability can attach to an administrator only where they commit their own extracontractual fault, such as through misrepresentation, or to a shareholder where the corporate veil is pierced — for instance, where the company was used as a screen to conceal fraud, an abuse of rights, or a violation of public order. No such evidence was presented, and the claim against Ouellet was dismissed.

On the merits against Univers, the court confirmed that Article 224(c) L.p.c. requires merchants to advertise an all-inclusive price from the moment any price is publicized, regardless of the advertising medium used. Price decomposition — breaking out fees separately — is simply prohibited. In the context of vehicle sales, advertised prices must include transport and preparation fees and other administrative charges. The court noted that Nadon was not required to prove that he was actually misled or that Univers acted in bad faith; a contravention of the provision is established by the fact of the practice itself. Univers's own position at the hearing — that it would never be possible for a consumer to purchase a vehicle at the advertised price because transport fees would always be added — illustrated precisely the type of prohibited practice the courts have repeatedly condemned. The court further held that Nadon's decision to proceed with the purchase despite objecting to the fees did not extinguish his right to claim relief, as a consumer's prior awareness of additional charges does not change the fact that a merchant contravenes Article 224(c) L.p.c. by failing to include those charges in the advertised price.

Ruling and outcome

The court allowed the claim in part. Univers Traction Sports Inc. was ordered to pay Jean-François Nadon $1,723.48 plus court costs of $112, for a total award of $1,835.48, together with interest at the legal rate of 5% per annum — rather than the 7% Nadon had requested — plus the additional indemnity provided under Article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec, running from the expiry of the demand notice on September 11, 2023. The claim against Dave Ouellet was dismissed in its entirety.