How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Legal Ease Your Own Question
Legal Ease
Legal Ease, Lawyer
Category: Canada Law
Satisfied Customers: 96498
Experience:  Lawyer
10263656
Type Your Canada Law Question Here...
Legal Ease is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I wish to bring a motion to strike under rule 12.02 of ontario

Customer Question

I wish to bring a motion to strike under rule 12.02 of ontario small court rules against home kitchen contractor
The Plaintiff(s) assert that the defence and Defendant(s) claim have no meaningful chance of success because the applicable contract, pursuant to the consumer protection act 2002 (CPA), violates the CPA, accordingly was statute barred and void ab initio ,there are juristic reason(s) to deny restitution otherwise and restitution would be otherwise unconscionable. The Defendant(s) was deceptive, unconscionable and failed to set-out on the contract EXHIBIT “A”, amongst other items, the following statutorily required elements according to the act which the Plaintiff is entitled to rely upon. O. Reg. 17/05, s. 35 (1),O. Reg. 17/05, s. 35 (2), O. Reg. 17/05, s. 24; O. Reg. 187/07, s. 2.
• Notice of the consumer’s right to cancel within 10 days;
• A break-down of which portion of the total cost was attributed to each service; or
• The delivery date for goods and services.
Juristic reasons include to deny restitution include:
CPA act itself and Donative intent -
Please advise the best way to proceed to win a rule 12.02 motion or the merits of bringing one in light of the recent SCC ruling that states:
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that consumer laws should be interpreted generously in the favour of consumers “[37] As to statutory purpose, the BPCPA is all about consumer protection. As such, its terms should be interpreted generously in favour of consumers.” Seidel v TELUS Communications (SCC, 2011) para 37
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Canada Law
Expert:  Legal Ease replied 1 year ago.
It is not likely you will succeed here because it seems to me that there are facts under dispute and if so then a trial judge has to decide about the facts at a trial.You have to show that there are no facts, even if believed, that would allow the plaintiff to win.I believe you will win but that you need a trial.Does that clarify the situation a bit better for you>

Related Canada Law Questions