canadian tire smythe fredericton sucks

Lots of the usual CT lies, here:

- Customers claimed that CT treats "treat every customer like a crook".
- That there's no evidence that CT's policies are contrary to the law in Ontario.
- CT has "smart businessmen" (LMAO!). Check out Conrad Black's new digs!
- The CT Reps keeps posting here daily, but it has nothing to do with "making a difference" (LOL!)

Regarding the policies that are contrary to Ontario law see here:

Sale of Goods Act
For the fuller list of CT lies, check out this thread:

Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

(But be sure and check out that 1 lonely BBB site that discussed rescinded legistlation. After all, that's really the only "evidence" that CT has on its side. Oh, and the site about non-defective items, LOL!)

And always remember:

- Every other major retailer has superior policies to CT's (at least from a customer's point of view!)
- "Friends Don't Let Friends Do Business With Canadian Tire" - for all the reasons you'll read on this and other pro-consumer sites.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Lots of the usual CT lies, here:

- Customers claimed that CT treats "treat every customer like a crook".
- That there's no evidence that CT's policies are contrary to the law in Ontario.
- CT has "smart businessmen" (LMAO!). Check out Conrad Black's new digs!
- The CT Reps keeps posting here daily, but it has nothing to do with "making a difference" (LOL!)

Regarding the policies that are contrary to Ontario law see here:

Sale of Goods Act
For the fuller list of CT lies, check out this thread:

Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

(But be sure and check out that 1 lonely BBB site that discussed rescinded legistlation. After all, that's really the only "evidence" that CT has on its side. Oh, and the site about non-defective items, LOL!)

And always remember:

- Every other major retailer has superior policies to CT's (at least from a customer's point of view!)
- "Friends Don't Let Friends Do Business With Canadian Tire" - for all the reasons you'll read on this and other pro-consumer sites.

Other consumer sites? Like this one:
Problem with Canadian Tire and their NOMA products [Archive] - RedFlagDeals.com Forums
DavidLer not getting the consensus he was looking for there either.
Or this one :
*UPDATED* Future shop wont exchange a broken product with reciept less than 30 days [Archive] - RedFlagDeals.com Forums
Not getting it here either.

Maybe the faker advocates can pool their resources (won't take much given their limited number...lol) and contact the ministry to clarify the situation....or have Ellen Roseman expose these illegal policies....or start a class action suit to quash these apparent illegal return policies once and for all....LMAO

Or

You can continue to lie to consumers because you like to.

Well there you have it folks, PROOF 100% that one of your own "Advocates" is actually a liar and a crooked consumer. Buy an item, put an old one in the box and return it as defective using the receipt of the new one.

I don't care HOW you slice it, that's wrong. In fact, by the letter of the law, it's fraud!

DavidLER you have been caught red(flagdeals)handed lying, and offering advice for consumers to cheat stores. This is the type of 'advocate' you are. This is the type of person you are. Dirty, underhanded and quite frankly fraudulant and criminal. Hang your head LER, you should be ashamed



Consumers: Decide for yourself if this is the type of behavious you want to emulate

Regarding the NOMA thread, you seem to have stumbled onto links to the "archive" version of RFD.

However, you really need to put in the extra effort, and look at the original verson (not the archived version).

You will see right away that the text you are looking at was, written by an earlier poster. It was that other poster


Regarding the coffee maker, there's a big discussion about the laws around re-buying and then returning a defective item. Obviously, there's an element of deception involved, and this was freely admitted. But there's been no evidence that this is "fraud".

Feel free to substantiate you claim of "fraud", though. It would be interesting to hear your justification.


So, was anyone "caught lying"? No.

Was anyone a "crooked customer"? No.

Did anyone do anything wrong? No.

Was anyone "fraudulant" or "criminal"? No.

Wrong again, CT Liars. Nice try, though.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Regarding the NOMA thread, you seem to have stumbled onto links to the "archive" version of RFD.

However, you really need to put in the extra effort, and look at the original verson (not the archived version).

You will see right away that the text you are looking at was, written by an earlier poster. It was that other poster


Regarding the coffee maker, there's a big discussion about the laws around re-buying and then returning a defective item. Obviously, there's an element of deception involved, and this was freely admitted. But there's been no evidence that this is "fraud".

Feel free to substantiate you claim of "fraud", though. It would be interesting to hear your justification.


So, was anyone "caught lying"? No.

Was anyone a "crooked customer"? No.

Did anyone do anything wrong? No.

Was anyone "fraudulant" or "criminal"? No.

Wrong again, CT Liars. Nice try, though.

Deception? But not Fraud?

Fraud Meaning and Definition

Here you go you rather thick loser. No wonder you post under anonymous here and under DavidLer on other sites. Your lack of credibility and lying would make you a nobody on Redflags as well.

Interesting link, on the huge difference between "deception" and "faud" in legal sense.

Which is lucky for the Crappy People, who are very busy doing both!