Registrar's Decision

Compliance > Registrar’s Decisions > Registrar’s Decision 11-015

Registrar's Decision 11-015

File Number: 11-015

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: ALBERT TAYLOR & NORMA TAYLOR

Licensee/Unlicensed person:

VERNON TOYOTA CENTRE & LISA LYNNE PROBYN a.k.a. LISA LYNNE DELANNOY

Issues:

The Taylors daughter worked at Vernon Toyota and had given the Taylors a vehicle as a gift, but it was actually financed in the Taylors name and eventually seized for non-payment. The Taylors were unaware they had, at least on paper, financed this purchase.
The daughter even used her own vehicle as a trade-in in order to obtain financing to pay-off a lien on her vehicle.
The Taylors had allowed their daughter to arrange previous sales and it turned out the daughter had financed another sale in her parents name without telling her parents. That vehicle was also seized by the bank. They Taylors made no payments on this vehicle.
The dealer investigated and found other issues of concern and ended the daughter’s employment. The dealer provided assistance to the Taylors by providing them a loaner vehicle.
The Taylors’ credit rating has suffered.
The Taylors noted the dealer’s cooperation throughout this ordeal.
The daughter, Lisa Probyn a.k.a. Lisa Delannoy surrendered her salesperson licence prior to the hearing in this matter.
Criminal charges against the daughter were recommended to crown counsel.
Issue: Was the dealer vicariously liable for their employee’s (the daughter’s) wrongful conduct under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA)?

Outcome:

Employers will not be held vicariously liable for all the wrongs committed by their employees: Bazley v. Curry [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534 (Supreme Court of Canada).
The fact that the employment can provide the mere opportunity to commit a wrong is insufficient to find vicarious liability: Bazley v. Curry [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534 (Supreme Court of Canada).
Vicarious liability follows where the wrongful conduct is closely connected to the employment and the employee is generally acting within the actual or apparent scope of their employment: Dams Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd. v. Mohtader 2008 BCSC 204 (BC Supreme Court) and Gives v. Schneider 1991 CarswellOnt 1548 (Ont. C.J.G.D.).
When the daughter provided her parents with the gift of a vehicle, she was dealing with her parents as their daughter and not as a business manager for the dealer. There was no “consumer transaction” as defined by the BPCPA and no vicarious liability could attach to the dealer.
There was also no breach of the BPCPA or vicarious liability for the daughter arranging a sale using her father’s personal and financial information without advising him of such. This transaction was not in the “course of business” for the dealer so as to attach vicarious liability to the dealer. The Taylors made no payments on this vehicle and the bank seized the vehicle and did not sue for any deficiency.
There was no evidence of profit by the dealer. In fact, the dealer appears to have suffered a financial loss.
Under the unique facts of this case, no breach of the BPCPA by way of vicarious liability was found against the dealer.

Click here for the full decision (PDF)

Registrar's Decision

Registrar's Decision 11-015

vsabc.ca