Bill 134: Amendments to the Consumer Protection Act and Novel Issues for Quebec Merchants
On May 2, 2017, the Quebec Minister of Justice introduced at first reading Bill 134, An Act mainly to modernize rules relating to consumer credit and to regulate debt settlement service contracts, high-cost credit contracts and loyalty programs (the “Bill”).
When financing a business, a lender will want to minimize its exposure to risk by weighing a multitude of factors. In particular it will want to ensure that the borrower continues to respect certain financial ratios and provides it with sufficient security, often in the form of movable hypothecs on the borrower’s present and future property.
Following a visit by a CNESST inspector to your construction site, or a serious accident or death on site, your company receives a statement of offence under section 237 the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) indicating that it is liable to a fine of between $15,000 and $300,000. Many people will say that it’s just a fine – nothing major – wrong!!
In its decision in 9324-0422 Québec Inc. v. Gestion Paul Daigle Inc., 2017 QCCA 242, the Quebec Court of Appeal has reminded us that caution is in order when it comes to ruling on motions to dismiss at the interlocutory stage, even where a precedent would appear to predetermine the outcome of the proceeding.
As a general rule, a person who has suffered harm can have the person responsible for causing the harm ordered to pay damages by proving fault, harm, and a causal link between the fault and the harm. That rule is tempered however by various other legal rules, and can be further nuanced by the clauses in a contract, particularly in the area of commercial leases.
Employers regularly have to deal with issues involving problem employees, such as persistent absenteeism, inappropriate behaviour or substandard work. Employers often have to intervene to ensure that their organizations function properly.