Thread: Canadian Tire Complaints on facebook - People Hate Crappy Tire!

What's up with the tents? Despite all the alleged testing, they sure do seem to suck!



Jason P.: If thats the easy up tent its garbage. Used mine couple times and it broke trying to take tent down. Also cust svc is usually poor called numerous times to verify if they had stock they always say no i would then go to the store to see it on shelf.

Tents-Shments:


Adam F.: I bought this same tent. One year later is falling apart already. Tried to return. Or at least get a new one. Stored moved to different location and they will not help me. Not pleased. Will not be shopping here any longer. Had 3 bad customer experiences in a row at different locations. Too bad

Tugz T.: Your power tools last only half way into the first job then they break...then there's your customer service, absolutely the worst. Totally unknowledgable staff....especially your auto parts people...dumber than a tree stump

Tom S Infact everything in Canadian tire is cheap crap!

Originally Posted by CTH8R

Who was it who wrote, "One brick at a time"?

hmm i wonder.....goes back to court on friday,we will see if im allowed to introduce fraud allegations into the proceedings...

Good luck on Friday! Be sure and let opus know how it goes!

Ok: headlight eyelashes?


Brian B.: well a least these will not be out of stock , because no one will buy them !!

A response to the "How to Get Back in Shape" thread - is it a complaint? A suggestion? A criticism?


Jared S.: Thats easy you work for a trucking company that hauls the Canadian tire containerz around then you deliver it to the store and instead of utilizing an invention that is essential in modern trucking like say for instance a (pallet) these retards load the containers from floor to roof thus damaging thousands of dollarz of merchanidise and the truck driver gets to play jenga! Maybe if CT paid more than ten dollars an hour they might actually figure out how to get some quality loaders!

Originally Posted by 1wildhorse

... we will see if im allowed to introduce fraud allegations into the proceedings...

I just thought of this. There is another thread on this site, about Dealers who falsely accuse customers of fraud.


There is the common-language definition of 'deception', but that's very different from the criminal definition.

From what I recall, there has to be:

- A deliberate deception (not just an 'honest mistake').
- The deception results in a gain that the perpetrator is not entitled to.
- The deception has to result in a loss to the person being deceived.

They might try to pull the 'gee, we didn't know' defence, but then these are people who claim to be 'well versed in the law'.

But it seems clear that their deception resulted in a gain for them (not giving the refund you were entitled to) and a loss to you (being stuck with a non-functioning product).

There might be more details at https://www.canadiantiresucks.net/ge...-receipts.html

actually there is legislation here....
Canadian Criminal Laws Dealing With Fraud in Canada

Criminal Code Offences

Canadian theft and fraud laws are built on the simple notion that exploitive dishonesty should be forbidden. Starting from the premise that honesty and dishonesty are such basic notions that everybody understands them, criminal law should clearly prohibit acts commonly considered dishonest to underline this understanding.

A person commits fraud who dishonestly by a) deceit; b) unfair nondisclosure; c) unfair exploitation induces any person or the public to part with any property or to suffer a financial loss.

This covers dishonest appropriation by deceit as in cases where the owner is deceived into willingly parting with his property with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

While deceit means any false representation it does not include an expression of opinion not made as a statement of fact. A seller has some latitude in "puffing" his goods, but he is not authorized to misrepresent them or to assign to them benefits they do not possess. Statements made for the purpose of deceiving prospective purchasers cannot properly be characterized as mere puffing.

Unfair nondisclosure is where a duty to disclose arises from

blue bullet point a) a special relationship entitling the victim to rely on the accused or
blue bullet point b) conduct by the accused creating a false impression in the victim's mind or
blue bullet point c) circumstances where nondisclosure would create a false impression in the mind of any reasonable person.

i believe that both sections b) and c) apply here.....