下面是我们(王女士和她先生)的请愿链接 via change.org
希望大家签名,写上你的comments帮我们一起转发和呼吁! 谢谢- Wendy Wang & Wei Li
家住密西沙加的王女士做梦都想搬进自己私人定制的新家,
据王女士介绍,2017年,
但是,2018年,
王女士在得知这一消息后非常不爽,马上与M公司联系,
但是M公司拒绝做任何解释,也拒绝退还王女士已付的154,
既然对方拒绝沟通,
随后,安省的所有上诉法院都驳回了王女士诉诸司法的权利。
王女士写信给司法部长和最高法院投诉,也没有任何改变。
而M公司坚持拒绝退还押金,
王女士说,直到打官司她才知道,
王女士认为这是加拿大立法体系的一个根本缺陷,
为此王女士在change.org发起请愿,
同时她要求法院重审此案,让她最终从M公司拿回属于她的押金。
王女士说,我们需要正义!
The purpose of the CPA is to protect consumers from unscrupulous vendors of services and materials. However, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario where the broad and powerful remedies available under the CPA can be used against a innocent contractors or suppliers.
The good news for such contractors or suppliers is that Courts have recognized that construction contracts differ from your typical door-to-door sales transactions, and just as consumers may require protection, contractors may be in need of protection from homeowners who try to use courts to take advantage of them.To this end, section 93(2) of the CPA grants a court the ability to order that a consumer be bound by all or a portion or portions of a consumer agreement, despite the consumer agreement not being in strict compliance with the Act. Courts have relied on this provision where they have found it would be unequitable to render the consumer contract unenforceable.