Got an oil change and then some.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You might want to search CanLII - Canadian Legal Information Institute for similar cases. The hard part is proving that Crappy Tire were the ones who caused the damage.

canlii is a good resource

you can learn a lot even from cases where the customer's lawsuit failed

avoid their mistakes - lessons learned

Thank you for pointing me towards CANLII, I found some really useful information there.

We decided not to pursue AMVIC. They mediate between the two parties in the matter, and I personally contacted the store with all the facts - and was told to beat it. If one of the parties is unwilling to negotiate at all (the store in this matter), then mediation is useless. We will just go straight to court, whose decision actually has binding power.

Originally Posted by dluk

Thank you for pointing me towards CANLII, I found some really useful information there.

We decided not to pursue AMVIC. They mediate between the two parties in the matter, and I personally contacted the store with all the facts - and was told to beat it. If one of the parties is unwilling to negotiate at all (the store in this matter), then mediation is useless. We will just go straight to court, whose decision actually has binding power.

No problem - glad it helped.

Would you be willing to post some links to cases you found useful? It would helpful to others who are in your shoes.

(Get it? "Brakes - Shoes"?)

Originally Posted by dluk

Thank you for pointing me towards CANLII, I found some really useful information there.

We decided not to pursue AMVIC. They mediate between the two parties in the matter, and I personally contacted the store with all the facts - and was told to beat it. If one of the parties is unwilling to negotiate at all (the store in this matter), then mediation is useless. We will just go straight to court, whose decision actually has binding power.

So AMVIC wouldn't support you? Interesting. Please post the link to your successful court case when completed.

This case is very similar to mine, against Wal-Mart.

CanLII - 2003 SKPC 106 (CanLII)

The plaintiff "have failed to discharge the legal burden of proof needed to establish liability on the part of the defendant."

I think we have a case though, since out situation if different from the one mentioned above. I will post here once after any more development in the case.

It's not that AMVIC wouldn't help me, and I am still planning to file a complaint with them, and I am hoping to get CT's licenses revoked with their help. AMVIC doesn't have legislative power to make CT pay for the repair, and would still tell me to go to court.

Originally Posted by dluk

This case is very similar to mine, against Wal-Mart.

CanLII - 2003 SKPC 106 (CanLII)

The plaintiff "have failed to discharge the legal burden of proof needed to establish liability on the part of the defendant."

I think we have a case though, since out situation if different from the one mentioned above. I will post here once after any more development in the case.

It's not that AMVIC wouldn't help me, and I am still planning to file a complaint with them, and I am hoping to get CT's licenses revoked with their help. AMVIC doesn't have legislative power to make CT pay for the repair, and would still tell me to go to court.

I thought you said that you had already contacted AMVIC. Yes, keep us in the loop.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So AMVIC wouldn't support you? Interesting. Please post the link to your successful court case when completed.

There's always some anti-consumer a-hole on here, trying to make things worse for Crappy Tire's victims.

Nice going, jerks.

Yes, I do indeed hope dluk gets some satisfaction from yet another Crappy Tire rip-off.