Vehicle Sale (Previous Accident)

Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, SO 2002, c 30, Sch B

Disclosure by motor vehicle dealers

30 (1) Motor vehicle dealers shall disclose in writing to customers and to motor vehicle dealers such information as may be prescribed and shall make the disclosure at such time as may be prescribed. 2002, c. 30, Sched. B, s. 30 (1).

Remedies

(2) If a motor vehicle dealer fails to make a disclosure as required under subsection (1) or fails to do so in a timely way, in addition to any other remedies that may be available, the person to whom disclosure should have been made is entitled to such other remedies as may be prescribed. 2002, c. 30, Sched. B, s. 30 (2).

==O. Reg. 333/08: GENERAL under Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. B

Coyne v. 1072984 Ontario Inc., 2004 CanLII 12104 (ON SC)

[15] The plaintiff pleads that the defendant misrepresented the vehicle to him in as much as he did not disclose to the plaintiff that the vehicle had previously been damaged in an auto collision resulting in repairs in excess of $5, 400.00 prior to the purchase nor was it disclosed to him that the vehicle had been leased by a third party prior to the sale to the plaintiff. The plaintiff seeks restitution for the purchase price of the van ($19, 164.65) plus repairs to the engine ($4,817.18 Can.) less a credit for the use of the van (in the amount of $7,200.00 calculated on the basis of a fair rental charge of $300.00 per month for 2 years) and less a credit for the amount of the sale of the van in December 2002 ($4,000.00) for a total of $12,781.73. The plaintiff seeks restitution based on rescission of the contract as a result of the failure of the defendant to disclose.

(...)

[18] If it can be said that the plaintiff has on the balance of probabilities established a misrepresentation as to the condition of the vehicle or the previous use or its reliability, then he is entitled to a remedy. This court is satisfied that on the totality of the evidence there was no misrepresentation made by the defendant to the plaintiff with regard the vehicle’s condition, previous use, its history, including any collisions it may have been in, or its reliability.

Lefrancois v Ottawa Chrysler Dodge, 2014 CanLII 54172 (ON SCSM)

8. A week later she attended to pick up the vehicle. It was on a typical Ottawa December day, rain and snow. She was shown how the various instruments and controls worked, and she was off with her new purchase. At no time was Mrs Lefrancois told that the vehicle was in a previous accident. According to her, it was a new car and without any blemishes. That is not an unreasonable expectation when purchasing a new vehicle. The odometer showed 242 km. The sales agreement Exhibit # P 2 states that the vehicle is “new. The price was $41,627.47 including a five year extended warranty for $3435.00. It contains no notation that it may have been previously repaired or that it has been in any accident or incident. Mrs Lefrancois had no reason to suspect that the vehicle had been damaged in an accident.

(...)

26. The evidence is uncontroverted that the plaintiff purchased a new vehicle. The sales agreement describes it as “new” with the odometer reading as 242 km.

27. The plaintiff gave evidence that the vehicle was described as new, it was sitting in the defendant’s show room and according to the plaintiff it was described by the salesman as new without any indication of previous damage to the vehicle. I accept her evidence.

28. Based on the evidence of Mr. Shahpou Rahnama and Mr. Gerry Schroeter I also find that it took a considerable amount of force to cause the damage. It is also clear that to that repairs done by the defendant were superficial without addressing the underlying structural damage caused by the accident.

(...)

33. I conclude that while the cosmetic repair only cost $751.55, a proper repair would have cost over $3000.00. Absent evidence from the repair shop that did the repair on behalf of the defendant or anyone with actual knowledge from the dealership, I find that the defendant did not rebut that the damage in this case was both structural in nature and a proper repair would have cost in excess of $3000.00. Accordingly, I conclude that when the car was sold to the plaintiff the vehicle was in a damaged condition.

34. The plaintiff purchased a new vehicle. By selling to the plaintiff a damaged vehicle the defendant has breached its contract. The sale of new vehicles is to be distinguished from the sale of used vehicles. In the latter, one may expect problems, but not if the vehicle is new (see: Peters v. Parkway Mercury Sales Ltd.[1975] N.B.J. No. 74. NBCA))