Ontario’s new Consumer Protection Act: Let the repairer beware

In my opinion, few industries requiring public trust, like auto repair, can survive a truly unregulated environment. The thieves are out there, and without some form of licensing or consumer safeguards, the image of the aftermarket as a whole will be tarnished by the relatively few bad apples. Here in Ontario, the Liberal government has passed a new set of laws designed to protect consumers, and it contains specific provisions for auto repair. It’s worth a read (http://www. e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/02c30_e.htm) even for operators outside Ontario, because similar legislation is sure to appear across the country. Here’s an excerpt:

Failure of work or repairs under warranty

(3) The person having charge of a vehicle that becomes inoperable or unsafe to drive because of the failure or inadequacy of work or repairs to which a warranty under this section applies may, when it is not reasonable to return the vehicle to the original repairer, have the failure or inadequacy repaired at the closest facility available for the work or repairs. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 63 (3).

Recovery of cost of failed work or repairs

(4) When work or repairs are made under subsection (3), the person entitled to a warranty under this section is entitled to recover from the original repairer the original cost of the work or repairs and reasonable towing charges. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 63 (4).

This means that a repair that fails, i.e. leaves the car undrivable or “unsafe” can result in your shop being hit with the repair and towing charge where another shop performs the corrective work. Is a MIL light an “unsafe” condition? The Act doesn’t say. Under what circumstances is it “not reasonable to return the vehicle to the original repairer”? These important details are not described by the Act, which does include comprehensive rules on estimates, return of used parts and warranties. How serious is this legislation? Consider this:

56. (1) No repairer shall charge a consumer for any work or repairs unless the repairer first gives the consumer an estimate that meets the prescribed requirements. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 56 (1). Get any part of the estimating process wrong, and the customer could have legal grounds to refuse payment.

There are lots of potential traps built into the Act and like all similar legislation, the courts will ultimately interpret the wording, to the cost of consumer and repairer alike. While I generally believe that governments fail dismally in almost every attempt to clarify the relationship and rights of consumers and retailers of goods and services, in this case, I think their hearts were in the right place. The concept of protecting consumers from the unscrupulous is a good one, but how does another law protect a consumer from a curbsider or back alley shop run by unlicensed repairers? Adding a requirement for higher ethical standards won’t change the behaviour of the unscrupulous, but it will add more paperwork for legal, ethical shops that enjoy good relationships with their regular clientele anyway. Is there a better way? How about a neighborhood Ombudsman or streamlined access to small claims adjudication for aggrieved consumers? As usual, the actions of a few result in costs for the many. How about a law that really clamps down on the illegal shops?