Why Do CT Defenders Post So Many Lies Here?

It’s pretty clear that the people who run CT suck, too.

Just look at the of anti-consumer, anti-society crap they routinely post here.

They don’t like customers, especially ones who want them to be honest and accurate in what they say, both in stores and on this site.

They don’t like consumers, especially ones who point out their constant lies, mis-stated policies, and how much better other stores are.

They don’t like their own employees, especially ones who tell the truth about how they run their stores.

They don’t like people with illnesses or disabilities, and want to stimatize them in society.

They don’t like unions, or really any people who try to help one-another. Especially, they don’t like “advocates”, whom they say are “fakers".

Plus the people at CT tell lie after lie, day after day.

Lies about what consumers wrote, lies about the policies of their own stores, lies about the policies of other stores, and lies about what people at Consumer’s Ministries say.

And they've admitted here that "it's about profit, make no mistake" and "yah, i’m greedy".

So, I think we’ve solved the mystery of 'Why Does CT Suck So Much?'

CT sucks, because the people who run it suck!

Unregistered said:

So typical of CT.


The Canadian public is upset with their cruel stance on staff and managers with mental illness?
Nothing wrong with CT - Canadians are just a bunch of “whiners”.

Customers are unhappy about CT hiding their crappy policies, and springing them on innocent customers who just want fair treatment? Customers are just too demanding – “Get the f’ out of my store”.

The examples continue.

Hint: legitimate complaints are an opportunity for the store to improve.

Click to expand...

The Canadian Public? You speak for the Canadian public as a whole do you? You certainly don't speak for the public who spent $25,000 at my store yesterday on a rainy Wednesday. They seemed to speak for themselves actually

Hint: you are correct LEGITIMATE complaints are an opportunity for a store to improve. Most of what's posted on here is not legitimate. Complaints yes. from constant complainers YES. People with an objective opinion willing to look at all options DEFINITELY NO.

A legitimate complaint is NOT, you are breaking the law by repairing that pressure washer. - sorry not interested
A legitimate complaint is NOT, I as a customer can choose how my warranty is dealt with, not you, the seller and provider of the warranty - sorry still not interested
A legitimate complaint is NOT - my car was absolutely perfect, without flaw when it came into your shop, now it won't run, has 2 flat tires and a rip in the seat. - Ummmmmm no

HappY Thursday
Don't forget to browse your new flyer

I love it when the self-appointed CT rep gets ‘all riled up’.

I've noticed that consumers only get “riled up” when the CT Rep posts lies, or behaves in outrageous ways, like making fun of people with illnesses or disabilities.

But it's hard to miss the fact that CT only gets ‘riled up’ when consumers post the truth about what Crappy Tire and its self-appointed Rep have been up to.

Luckily, their responses to being called on their despicable actions are very predictable:

- Tell more lies (like a customer has to settle for a repair, and not the legally required refund or exchange).
- Pretend that a store's return policy and a manufacturer's warranty are the same thing.
- Blame the customers for problems the store created.

The insults towards consumers should be starting shortly

Yes, we've heard from them, loudly and clearly, that there's only one thing that matters to them:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Indeed, "Profit Before Truth" is their true motto.

How you making out with that call to Ellen Roseman?
How about W5?
A lawyer?
A media source?

Faker advocate must not believe the lies he posts. Don't forget to donate...lol

Well, not so many lies about what consumers have written, lately.

No, the CT Liar has decided instead to dig back into their big bag of lies about consumer law, and pull out some of the old classics:

CT Law Lie #8 – A customer is not entitled to an exchange on a “Repair Only” product.

CT Law Lie #9 - A customer is not entitled to a refund for a “Repair Only” or “Exchange Only” product.

CT Site Lie #11 – There’s a BBB site quotes the Business Practices Act, and it says that it’s OK for a store to repair an item instead of giving a refund.

CT Retail Lie #12 – A manufacturer’s warranty is the same thing as a return policy.

CT Store Lie #15 - The products CT sells are not actually defective - customers don't know the product, or want “a free rental”.

CT Store Lie #16 – People who want to return defective products are trying to defraud the store.

CT Law Lie #23 – There is credible evidence available online that proves Ontario consumers are not entiled to a refund or exchange for a defective item – it is completely at the discretion of the retailer.

I guess we'll just have to wait a bit, to hear the other 17 lies be trotted out once again, too ...

can I call it or what....guess we won't be seeing any media articles about illegal return policies after all...lmao

Not sure why the Ministry of Consumer Services link was broken, but I'll try again.....even though faker advocate will call it misstated or lies:

Refunds, Exchanges and Deposits

What would the ministry know? I have an idea....you should call them and get the truth about faker advocates opinion. Would be the number ONE reason that he hasn't called the media, Ellen Roseman, started a lawsuit, .....yes, he borders on the ridiculous, no matter which alter ego he posts under.

Unregistered said:

can I call it or what....

Click to expand...

Uh, the CT rep seems pretty confused. Not uncommon for them, LOL.

I do believe they meant to reply to a post that's waaaaaay over heeeeere: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...d-goods-ct-has-worst-policies-4.html#post4523

And they think they called something, huh?

Here's the formula for next time:

1 - Find a statement that's already been disproven (like, a site that references obsolete legislation).
2 - Post the same, old, tired link, claiming it's relevant.
3 - Add a 'prediction' that someone will say 'Hey! That's the same old, tired link to obsolete legislation!').
4 - Gloat absurdly, as if you've 'won', when an alert consumer (predicatably) writes, 'Hey! That's the same old, tired link to obsolete legislation!'.

Yes, the CT geniuses have stumped only themselves, LOL!

Oh, but thanks for fixing your broken link, genius.

Too bad it's only about returns of 'unwanted' items - a point that was long ago conceeded .... waaaaaay over heeeeere: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...ing-unwanted-goods-ct-has-worst-policies.html

Also too bad that it's off-topic for defective or unfit items - but have a look at this post for some interesting reading. Government of Ontario, law professor, law students, Ellen Roseman, and so forth. About 15 or 16 of them at https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613.

But, feel free to chase down all those leads you mentioned, to see if you can disprove any of the information already posted.

In the meantime, consumers have all the informtion they need to get the refunds or exchanges they are entitled to, regardless of the policies CT might try to force on them.

Happy Lying!

CTH8R said:

Uh, the CT rep seems pretty confused. Not uncommon for them, LOL.

I do believe they meant to reply to a post that's waaaaaay over heeeeere: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...d-goods-ct-has-worst-policies-4.html#post4523

And they think they called something, huh?

Here's the formula for next time:

1 - Find a statement that's already been disproven (like, a site that references obsolete legislation).
2 - Post the same, old, tired link, claiming it's relevant.
3 - Add a 'prediction' that someone will say 'Hey! That's the same old, tired link to obsolete legislation!').
4 - Gloat absurdly, as if you've 'won', when an alert consumer (predicatably) writes, 'Hey! That's the same old, tired link to obsolete legislation!'.

Yes, the CT geniuses have stumped only themselves, LOL!

Oh, but thanks for fixing your broken link, genius.

Too bad it's only about returns of 'unwanted' items - a point that was long ago conceeded .... waaaaaay over heeeeere: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...ing-unwanted-goods-ct-has-worst-policies.html

Also too bad that it's off-topic for defective or unfit items - but have a look at this post for some interesting reading. Government of Ontario, law professor, law students, Ellen Roseman, and so forth. About 15 or 16 of them at https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613.

But, feel free to chase down all those leads you mentioned, to see if you can disprove any of the information already posted.

In the meantime, consumers have all the informtion they need to get the refunds or exchanges they are entitled to, regardless of the policies CT might try to force on them.

Happy Lying!

Click to expand...

Obsolete Legislation? You keep saying that but I guess you didn't scroll to the bottom to see - last updated June 13, 2011....lmao. Your right though, why should we believe the actual Ministry when we have your lies to rely on....too funny. How you making out with some credible person to mention how illegal our policies are....or maybe ANY other retailer.....hilarious!

Unregistered said:

Obsolete Legislation? You keep saying that but I guess you didn't scroll to the bottom to see - last updated June 13, 2011....lmao. Your right though, why should we believe the actual Ministry when we have your lies to rely on....too funny. How you making out with some credible person to mention how illegal our policies are....or maybe ANY other retailer.....hilarious!

Click to expand...

The CT Liars are easily confused, I see.

They have trouble telling the difference between the date a web site was updated, and the date the legislation was updated.

The BPA was replaced in 2005. Even though the web site was updated in 2011, it still references this out-dated legislation.

This was already pointed out as a recurring CT lie, back in May: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...efenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html#post3773

"#11 – There’s a BBB site that references the Business Practices Act, and it says that it’s OK for a store to repair an item instead of giving a refund. The site in question references out-dated information. The BPA was replaced by the CPA in 2005. See CanLII - Business Practices Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.18 for details. (And the site is not clear on whether, under the old laws, the customer used to be able to can choose the remedy, or the store used to be able to choose.) "

In fact, this whole discussion is just a re-run:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...rranty-no-refund-no-exchange-47.html#post4096

Are we going to have this come up every month??

The prolific output of the self-appointed CT Rep in itself belies the very claims they make on this site:

- The CT rep says that this site makes no difference. Yet, they post here most days, and they post more than once. Could it be that the CT rep has figured out that this site really DOES make a difference?
- The CT rep says that only a few people read this site, yet there are many hundreds of views every day.
- The CT rep posts lie after lie, yet claims to be honest and truthful. Should we believe them?
- The CT rep says they want to save the environment by refusing returns - yet they make money by refusing returns.
- The CT rep says they want to save customers embarrassment and frustration by telling customers the SGA and CPA don't apply. But aren't they just keeping out money?

Yes, it really does make one wonder, if all this output by them is designed to save customers from themselves, or just save the stores money.

Well, consumers, the CT liar has been busy again.

Mostly just lies about what consumers wrote, and with vague claims that consumers tell "lies", when they actually didn't. As usual, no valid evidence is offered, either.

We are also seeing the same lies about laws being repeated.

The CT Liar really only has 2 web sites to support their false claim that consumers aren't entitled to a refund or exchange.

Both fall under this lie:

CT Lie #23 – Credible evidence is available online to prove Ontario consumers are not entitled to a refund or exchange for a defective item.

For details: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...nders-post-so-many-lies-here-16.html#post4395


The claims about the London BBB site also falls under this lie:

https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...fenders-post-so-many-lies-here.html#post3773:

#11 – There’s a BBB site that references the Business Practices Act, and it says that it’s OK for a store to repair an item instead of giving a refund.

"The site in question references out-dated information. The BPA was replaced by the CPA in 2005. See CanLII - Business Practices Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.18 for details."

In fact, there's a second aspect to this lie: the outdated information at this site doesn't say who decides on exchange vs. repair. Many other retailers have policies that say "refund or exchange", and it has been confirmed that it's the customer's choice.

The government site is actually about the return of "unwanted" products, which isn't applicable to defective products.

This really should become an official CT lies:

CT Lie #25 – There’s not law requiring stores to provide refunds or exchanges when the customer changes their mind, so stores don’t have to accept returns of defective items.

It’s true that retailers do not have to have a policy to provide returns for ‘unwanted’ products (although they should follow their written policy).

However, there are separate laws for defective products, and those that are not fit for their intended purpose.

See https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613 for details.

Faker Advocate doesn't like it when people call him on his lies. He goes into super liar mode and says that only he is right and everyone else is wrong (hear the feet stomping). Now, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs on their own updated site is wrong....haha...no proof, no letter to them, just faker advocates opinion...too funny
You lose, loser, you lose.

Once more, the CT reps failed to provide specific on what these so-called "lies' actually are, let alone provide any evidence to back up their bogus claim.

Of course, there are no examples of any consumer saying "only I am right" and "everyone else is wrong". So, another lie about consumers.

Also, a typical CT lie regarding the Ministry site. Nobody said it was "wrong" - only that it covered unwanted goods, not defective goods.

More lies to add to the growing list ...

It's amusing how the CT people say consumers with legitimate beefs against this awful store are just "whiners".

But at least the consumers have something specific they are unhappy about.

And if they call the CT people liars, it's because of something specific that CT wrote.

But somehow, when the CT people complain about consumers telling "lies", there's usually not anything specific. Just a lot of vagues accusations.

You'd think they'd be less hypocritical, when they represent their own store in such a public way.

Unregistered said:

It's amusing how the CT people say consumers with legitimate beefs against this awful store are just "whiners".

But at least the consumers have something specific they are unhappy about.

And if they call the CT people liars, it's because of something specific that CT wrote.

But somehow, when the CT people complain about consumers telling "lies", there's usually not anything specific. Just a lot of vagues accusations.

You'd think they'd be less hypocritical, when they represent their own store in such a public way.

Click to expand...

You think that's funny? How about not one credible source EVER saying Canadian Tire or ANY other retailer has illegal policies.....yet here you are, day after day lying that they do....that's down right hilarious!
You want to shut me up and keep from calling you on this lie, each and every day, then by all means find any credible source that mentions CT's or ANY other retailer's illegal return policy.
How you making out with getting the Ministry to update their own site?
How goes the letter to Ellen Roseman to expose these illegal policies?
When can I watch the W5 program that goes after these illegal policies?
Which lawyer will be handling the class action suit?
When will the local member of parliament be contacting CT to correct their illegal policies?
It's only been 6 years since the last CPA change and yet you are the ONLY one to recognize the illegal policy?...LOL...gimme a break.

Unregistered said:

How about not one credible source EVER saying Canadian Tire or ANY other retailer has illegal policies.....yet here you are, day after day lying that they do.

Click to expand...

Well, consumers, here we have some more CT lies, I'm afraid.

No, there's been no statements from any consumer claiming that there's any "source" that says "Canadian Tire has an illegal policy".

And there's no reason to believe that the lack of such a source somehow "proves" that CT does not have an illegal policy. That's just a ridiculous claim that the self-appointed CT Rep has made up on their own.

And this "day after day thing"? The CT rep seems to be the only one bringing up "illegal" on a regular basis. They really do seem to have a bee in their bonnet about that one, LOL!

Besides, didn't the consumers who post here concede months ago that everyone is entitled to form their own opinion on this matter? What does the CT Rep want? It seems like they think the world owes them, LOL!

This has been going on for months, and the self-appointed CT rep just can't seem to drop it. Sort of like a small-time terrorist: no demands - just a lot of complaining.

It's a lot like this absurd "600.sucks.com" thing, and the childish "loser loses lose" mantra.

Oh, well. Consumers can decide for themselves whether they think CT has an illegal policy, based on CT's own definition: "against a law, is illegal", and based on all the evidence already provided from over a dozen reputable source that CT's policy is indeed against the CPA: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613

Anyway, what does it matter if a self-appointed CT Rep can or can't be convinced that a policy is "illegal"? They rarely admit they are wrong, no matter how much evidence is presented.

And it sure doesn't seem to matter much to consumers - they just want the refund (or even an exchange) they are entitled to under the law!

And luckily, there seems to be more than enough information already provided for consumers who want to persue that.

But clearly, the self-appointed CT rep wants more. Well, that's nice. We can all hope they have an enjoyable search. I'm sure they'll be quick to post their results, once they find them. Or, post a bunch more lies, if the search failes.

(And it hasn't been going too well for them, though, now has it? Just one site that's not about defective products, and another that's about out-dated legislation.)

It is kind of funny, though that the self-appointed CT rep is trying so, so, so hard to find even one lie on the part of consumers.

And even funnier that, day after day, the self-appointed CT rep posts lie after self-serving lie.

Lies about what consumers wrote, lies about CTs policies, lies about other stores' policies, and so on.

So many lies, yet so much trouble finding someone else's lies! Absolutely hilarious!

And all of this is taking place on a site that the CT rep says has "little impact". Even more hilarious!

I think I'll be laughing myself to sleep tonight ...

So you admit it's only your opinion? You have no credible source that will state that CT or ANY other retailer has an illegal policy? Then you admit that you are a loser and that you indeed lose?
When called on your lies, it becomes so, so, so evident that you are a faker advocate, only posting your own opinions...no proof, no evidence, just rantings and ravings.....good luck with that....LMAO!

When someone states a logical conclusion based on definitions and evidence, that is not a "lie".

It wasn't a lie back in May on the "Repair Only Warranty" thread, and it isn't a lie now on this thread.

There is evidence - but it seems there will never be enough to prove something to a CT defender.

The only 'rantings and ravings' (isn't that label really just an 'opinion'?) are from the CT defender, who has nothing more than a lot of guess-work and misrepresentations to combate all the competing evidence.

Unregistered said:

When someone states a logical conclusion based on definitions and evidence, that is not a "lie".

It wasn't a lie back in May on the "Repair Only Warranty" thread, and it isn't a lie now on this thread.

There is evidence - but it seems there will never be enough to prove something to a CT defender.

The only 'rantings and ravings' (isn't that label really just an 'opinion'?) are from the CT defender, who has nothing more than a lot of guess-work and misrepresentations to combate all the competing evidence.

Click to expand...

Really? Where is the "evidence" that some credible source has said CT or ANY retailer has policies that are illegal?
I can't find even one.
Yes, when there is not even one, and you draw your conclusions from your interpretations, then it is a lie to state it as fact. It isn't a fact, you have no one that has said it's a fact; therefore it's a lie.
Nice try though....people can figure you out easy enough. Care to stamp your feet again.

Consumers who are interested in the laws requiring retailers to provide a refunds (or even just an exchange, if the customer wants one) can see links to the evidence on this thread: https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/g...aints-chat/707-sale-goods-act-6.html#post3613

Non-consumers are also welcome to review the evidence .... but it appears they already have their minds made up, regardless of what the evidence shows.