VSA
Search
Close this search box.
Search
Close this search box.

Registrar's Decision

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.

Click here for the full decision (PDF)