Application of collective action against the company that operates the toll highway 25
Photo Archives / Agence QMI
Monday, 22 January 2018 13:35
Monday, 22 January 2018 13:39
Look at this article
A citizen of Laval, Ian Poitras, brought a collective action against the company that operates the toll bridge of highway 25 between Montreal and Laval, as a result of collection fees, exorbitant costs that have been imposed.
The law firm of Grenier Verbauwhede, which handles the prosecution, maintains that these costs recoveries are illegal under the Act on the protection of consumers and the civil Code of Québec.
Because of a imbroglio that occurred after a change of address of Mr. Poitras, who has led the non-payment of sums due to the passages on the bridge, the company’s Concession A25 was placed in a second opinion of cost recovery of more than $ 30 for each passage unpaid after 30 days.
With the cost of a passage estimated at approximately $ 3, Mr. Poitras and his lawyers believe that the collection fees are exorbitant. “All the defendant has to claim these exorbitant fees is to send automatic notifications to an address already provided by the SAAQ, one can read in the document presented to the court.
The applicant and his lawyers want to try to convince the court, in particular, that under the Law on the protection of the consumer, the fee is illegal, among other things, because they are so disproportionate that it amounted to exploitation of the consumer “.
In addition, in the application for authorisation of the collective action, it is mentioned that, if the amount of over $ 30 was expressed as an interest rate to pay (plus expenses for the first opinion), it would be a rate of 453 %, which goes against the maximum rate provided by law.
The applicant also relied on the civil Code of Québec, which, for its part, ” seeks to punish penalty clauses abusive “.
Mr. Poitras ‘request, therefore,” the return of full recovery of costs that it has imposed on the company Concession A25, as well as punitive damages to denounce the recklessness serious made by this company vis-à-vis its obligations under the Act on the protection of the consumer and to deter such conduct in the future “, according to the plaintiff’s solicitors, on Monday, by making public the request for authorization of the action.
During a phone interview with the QMI Agency, Monday, the lawyer Bruno Grenier of the law firm Grenier Verbauwhede said that Mr. Poitras is not the only one to have been a victim of the sort of Concession A25, where the use of a collective action before the courts.