Registrar's Decision

Compliance > Registrar’s Decisions > Registrar’s Decision 10-U039

Registrar's Decision 10-054

File Number: 10-U039

In the matter of THE MOTOR DEALER ACT R.S.B.C.1996 C.316
and THE BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT S.B.C. 2004 c.2

Complainant: BILL CHYPLYK AND CHERYL ANNE TREWHITT

Licensee/Unlicensed person:

TECHNIQUE AUTO SALES CORPORATION

Issues:

Dealer sold a Jeep to the consumer in August, 2003.
Jeep was actually a stolen vehicle with a fake vehicle identification number – a cloned vehicle.
Vehicle was seized from the consumer by the RCMP and returned to its lawful owner – ICBC who paid out a claim on the Jeep.
Dealer and consumer are unable to come to a resolution on compensation. Consumer sought the value given to the Jeep by ICBC at the time of the seizure.
Dealer stated ICBC over-values vehicles.
Claim against the dealer is for a deceptive act or practice contrary to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA).
Dealer raised various questions such as: (1) limitation period, (2) applying the law into the past, (3) Registrar’s authority to look beyond his statute, (4) why a dealer is liable for costs and a fine and (5) asked to explain undertakings.

Outcome:

Limitation period under the BPCPA is generally 6 years, except where the facts allow the postponement of time potentially up to 30 years. The time should be postponed in this case.
The deceptive act provisions of the BPCPA are fully retroactive.
The Registrar may consider and apply the whole of the law to a matter within his jurisdiction to hear and provide a remedy.
Administrative penalties are a tool to gain and maintain compliance. They do not deal with cost recovery which the Registrar may also order.
The dealer committed an innocent misrepresentation which is a deceptive act or practice under the BPCPA.
The dealer was ordered to compensate the consumer the value as assessed by ICBC.
The dealer was ordered to reimburse the Registrar and the Authority its investigation and hearing costs.
No administrative penalty was warranted in the circumstances, citing a prior Registrar’s decision.