Here's the case where parents sued Crappy Tire in Quebec for 2 defective bicycles:
https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...-goods-ct-has-worst-policies-14.html#post5615
I decided to run the Google Translator on this, to see what it came up with.
The original posting was here:
https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...-goods-ct-has-worst-policies-14.html#post5615
The (rough) translation is:
----
PRESIDING:
HON MARIE-André Villeneuve, J.C.Q
CLAUDE GAGNON
Plaintiff
c.
CANADIAN TIRE
Defendant
JUDGEMENT
[1] The plaintiff, individually and as guardian to her two minor son, claims $ 661.54 to the defendant because it has sold two bikes that have proven dangerous both in the design of the use.
[2] The defendant argues that it has sold several similar models and it is not aware of any other complaint. However, despite this, she offers to return the bikes and pay the claimant the price paid when the purchase is $ 299.04 provides that the applicant state unsatisfactory.
THE FACTS:
[3] On May 24, 2003, the plaintiff purchased two regular bikes (18 speed) in the new defendant for the benefit of his two minor son Patrick and Simon aged respectively 14 and 12.
[4] On May 27, 2003, Simon uses his bicycle for the first time. In wanting to slow down while descending a street, but it brakes the rear wheel is lifted suddenly carries a spin which causes the sudden drop Simon forward. It suffered a compound fracture of the arm that requires surgery and hospitalization for several days as well as the establishment of a cast.
[5] On or about June 19, 2003, Patrick uses his bicycle for the fifth day. Trying to avoid a dog, he was forced to stop again but the rear wheel of the bicycle is raised abruptly. Patrick was almost ejected from his bike but luckily it comes out with a few scratches.
[6] At the hearing, the Court examined the two bikes. As noted in the applicant, the wheels go wrong, the pedal is loose and can break the rear tires to use because it is virtually out of the rim. No doubt the bicycles that have hardly been used are in poor condition and have not used in normal use for a reasonable time. The applicant has the right to offer to return the bicycle to the defendant and to be reimbursed the price paid.
[7] As noted in the applicant, it is not mountain bike which requires special handling to avoid accidents. True, as pointed out by the representative of the defendant that the application of the brakes just before can be dangerous.
[8] However, in the case submitted, the applicant said that he supported on the brake slightly before due diligence and that the rear wheel raised instantly. The brakes are too powerful for the weight and size of bikes.
[9] The Tribunal finds that, given these circumstances, the two bikes were dangerous and caused injury especially to Simon who was hospitalized. The Court awards the sum of $ 135.50 for ambulance fees, $ 7.00 entry fee to the beach which has benefited Simon, $ 20.00 in parking fees.
[10] The plaintiff seeks $ 200.00 as wages lost due to medical appointments. He did not produce any document in support of this claim.
[11] The Tribunal also awarded him a sum of $ 150.00 as a hardship and inconvenience.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:
WELCOMES the application in part of the plaintiff;
ENDORSES the plaintiff's offer to hand over the two bicycles to the defendant and ordered him to comply;
ORDERS the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $ 611.94, with interest at the legal rate from the assignment, or August 15, 2003, plus the additional indemnity provided for in section 1619 of the Civil Code Quebec and court costs;
THE WHOLE with costs.
