Consumer Protection Online

Ontario Consumer Protection Act, 2002 - Financial Services Commission of Ontario


On May 29, 2009, CIPPIC submitted a letter to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, calling for an expansion of the protections found in the Ontario Consumer Protection Act, 2002 so that these protections would apply to financial services as well.  Currently, the Act provides protections generally to consumers engaging in all services, but excludes specific financial services such as non-auto insurance, and mortgages. 

The submission recognizes that the excluded financial services enjoy some degree of protection under other statutory regimes, but briefly points to a number of instances where these other regimes fail to provide protections available in the CPA.  It also points to some potential problems that may arise from these shortcomings.

Finally, the submission argues that the CPA is a statute of general application intended to provide protection for consumers in commercial transactions and was intended to remedy the piecemeal approach taken to consumer protection up until that point by centralizing all protections in one statute.  The protections it provides are basic, and should apply to any consumer transactions, including financial transactions.  For these reasons, the submission calls for greater examination of the specific harms and benefits that arise from this lack of extended application.  This is especially salient in light of recent problems in international financial industries.  The letter calls for a more detailed examination of the issues in question.

Google-DoubleClick Merger

In late July, 2007, CIPPIC followed the lead of public interest groups in the USA and Europe by asking Canadian competition authorities to review the proposed merger of Google and DoubleClick on the grounds that it will substantially prevent or lessen competition in the online targeted advertising market.  Our concerns are that Google-DoubleClick will be able to manipulate the market to raise advertising prices, and advertisers and web publishers will have to choose Google-DoubleClick in order to be visible in the e-commerce market. 

Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des Consommateurs et al

On June 9, 2006, CIPPIC, together with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), filed an application for leave to intervene in the Supreme Court of Canada appeal of a Quebec Court of Appeal decision by Dell Computer Corporation. Dell was appealing a determination that the mandatory arbitration clause in its standard terms and conditions of sale was unenforceable against consumers because it was not properly brought to their attention. Dell merely included a hyperlink to the terms and conditions of sale on its website, and did not take any steps to ensure that customers making online purchases actually agreed to the contract, let alone the mandatory arbitration clause. The case arose when Union des consommateurs applied for certification of a class action against Dell, and Dell responded by arguing that the matter must go to arbitration due to the mandatory arbitration clause in its standard terms and conditions of sale.

CIPPIC and PIAC were granted leave to intervene and filed their factum on September 15, 2006. We made two main arguments:

  1. That the class action is a procedure of public order under Quebec law, which procedural right consumers cannot validly waive by way of and arbitration clause in a standard form contract for sale or service; and
  2. That the simple presence of a hyperlink on a web page is not sufficient to comply with consumer notification requirements under Quebec law.

The London Court of International Arbitration, the ADR Institute of Canada and the ADR Chambers Inc. were also granted status to intervene, and filed their factums on Sept. 15, 2006. Each intervener had fifteen minutes to make oral submissions at the Supreme Court hearing on December 13, 2006.

The Court rendered its decision on July 13, 2007, granting Dell's appeal. In determining that Dell's mandatory arbitration clause was enforceable despite the fact that it was not specifically agreed to by consumers, the court rejected arguments made by CIPPIC and others that retailers should not be allowed to deny consumers the right to sue through terms of sale imposed on consumers. The court further held that mere hyperlinking to such terms via the retailer's website, without bringing them to the attention of consumers, is sufficient to make them binding on consumers. Consumer groups swiftly denounced the decision, calling on legislatures to fill in the breach. In fact, the Quebec government passed legislation during the court's deliberations making mandatory arbitration clauses unenforceable in that province.  In doing so, it followed the lead of Ontario and other governments. CIPPIC News Release PIAC News Release

Factums and other documents related to this case can be found at the document archives.

Ontario Consumer Protection Act, 2002 - Regulations re: Online Transactions

On January 30, 2004, CIPPIC filed comments with the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Business Services (MCBS) on its draft regulations under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, as they would affect online transactions. With a few minor exceptions, CIPPIC strongly supports the government's proposals which, if passed, would establish a much more transparent and fair online (and offline) marketplace. Other jurisdictions should follow Ontario's lead.

Back to top

This page last updated: June 2, 2007

Webpage URL: http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/consumer-protection/