The intersection of consumer protection laws and corporate marketing strategies was recently examined in an Ottawa courtroom, where a homeowner successfully argued that a major HVAC service provider misled the public regarding its repair capabilities1. Paul Allan Morrison, a resident of Ottawa who had paid for a protection plan for his home furnace for over a decade, brought a legal challenge against Reliance Home Comfort following a multi-day furnace failure during the winter of 2024. While the court ultimately declined to award monetary damages to the plaintiff, the ruling established that Reliance had engaged in an unfair practice under the Consumer Protection Act by making absolute factual claims about its parts inventory that the company admitted it could not actually fulfill.
The dispute began on Thursday, March 14, 2024, when the furnace at the Morrison residence ceased to function. Mr. Morrison discovered that the pilot gas light would not ignite, prompting him to contact Reliance Home Comfort at approximately 2:50 p.m. that afternoon. Mr. Morrison was a long-standing customer of the company, enrolled in the Comfort Heating and Cooling Protection Plan Plus Maintenance. This subscription service, for which he paid a monthly fee, entitled him to annual maintenance inspections and coverage for the cost of repairs and parts when equipment failures occurred. Given the cold temperatures in Ottawa during mid-March, a furnace failure represented a significant domestic disruption, especially for a household that included multiple tenants.
A Reliance technician was dispatched to the property and arrived in the late afternoon or early evening on the day of the call. Upon inspection, the technician diagnosed the issue as a faulty Hot Surface Igniter, or HSI, which required replacement to restore the heating system. However, the technician did not have the necessary part available in his service van. During the service call, the technician ordered the part from the company’s designated supplier and informed Mr. Morrison that the component would likely be delivered and installed on Monday, March 18, 2024. This timeline meant that the household would be left without heat for approximately four days, during which time the internal temperature of the building would steadily drop.
The Morrison home is divided into three units, with two units occupied by three tenants and the third occupied by Mr. Morrison, his wife, and their son. Upon being informed that heat would not be restored until the following week, the tenants chose to vacate their units until the repairs could be completed. Mr. Morrison and his family remained in the building to monitor the situation, manage portable electric heaters, and ensure that the plumbing did not freeze as the house cooled. At the time of the initial diagnosis, Mr. Morrison did not raise an objection to the technician regarding the projected timeline, and he did not immediately contact Reliance management to request an expedited solution.
The situation grew more complicated on Monday, March 18, when Mr. Morrison contacted Reliance to confirm the installation. He was informed that the part could not be located and that the installation would not take place as scheduled. It was not until the following day, Tuesday, March 19, that Mr. Morrison learned through further communications that the part had finally been located at a local branch office. The repair was eventually completed by 1:00 p.m. that Tuesday, nearly five full days after the initial service call. While Mr. Morrison expressed no dissatisfaction with the technical quality of the eventual repair or the conduct of the individual technicians, he was deeply troubled by the length of the delay and the logistical processes employed by Reliance.
Following the restoration of his heat, Mr. Morrison conducted his own investigation into the availability of the HSI part. He contacted two other HVAC suppliers in the Ottawa area that carried the same brand of furnace as his own and discovered that the HSI is a common component that requires frequent replacement. Both suppliers informed him that they had the parts in stock at the time of his inquiry. This discovery led Mr. Morrison to question why a large organization like Reliance, which specialized in furnace protection plans, did not have immediate access to a common part or a more efficient supply chain for emergency “no heat” situations in the middle of winter.
The matter proceeded to a hybrid trial before Deputy Judge J. Arrigo in the Ottawa Small Claims Court. Mr. Morrison represented himself, while Reliance Home Comfort was represented by legal counsel. The plaintiff sought damages based on three distinct legal theories: breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Consumer Protection Act. During the proceedings, the court reviewed the terms and conditions of the protection plan, which Reliance witnesses testified had remained substantially unchanged over several years.
In analyzing the breach of contract claim, Deputy Judge Arrigo found that Reliance had fulfilled its basic contractual obligations. The agreement stated that Reliance would diagnose and repair or replace specified parts in exchange for a monthly fee. The contract also included a provision acknowledging that if a part was unavailable, the company would attempt to obtain a replacement as quickly as possible, while noting that limited availability could result in delays. The judge noted that while Mr. Morrison argued that Reliance should have sourced the part from other local dealers, there was no evidence presented to prove that Reliance’s established supply chain fell below the standard of care for the industry. The court concluded that while Reliance provided poor customer service by failing to offer alternative solutions during a winter emergency, such as searching other technicians’ vans for the part or using a faster courier service, this did not constitute a legal breach of the written contract.
The claim for negligent misrepresentation was also dismissed, though for different reasons. To succeed in such a claim, a plaintiff must prove several elements established by the Supreme Court of Canada, including the fact that they reasonably relied on a false or misleading statement when entering into a contract. Mr. Morrison pointed to various marketing slogans on the Reliance website and work orders, such as a 100 percent satisfaction guarantee and claims that vans were always stocked with all necessary parts. However, during the trial, Mr. Morrison admitted that he had not actually relied on these specific representations when he originally signed up for the protection plan years earlier. Instead, he discovered these statements while researching his complaint after the furnace failure had already occurred. Because the element of reliance was missing, the misrepresentation claim could not stand.
The final and most significant portion of the ruling focused on whether Reliance’s advertising violated the Ontario Consumer Protection Act. Unlike a claim for misrepresentation, an unfair practice claim under this legislation does not require a plaintiff to prove that they personally relied on the statement to their detriment. Instead, the court must determine objectively whether a representation is false or tends to deceive a reasonable consumer. Mr. Morrison highlighted a specific statement on the Reliance website: “Plus, our vans are always stocked with all the parts needed to get your repairs done quickly.”
During the trial, a witness for Reliance made a candid admission that undermined the company’s defense on this point. The witness conceded that it would be impossible for a service van to carry every part for every type of furnace covered under their plans, stating that such an inventory would take up an entire aisle at a Home Depot. Reliance argued that the statement was merely “puffery,” a term used in law to describe exaggerated marketing claims that no reasonable person would take literally. Deputy Judge Arrigo disagreed with this characterization. The court found that the phrase “always stocked with all the parts needed” was an absolute and verifiable factual claim rather than a vague opinion. The judge ruled that this statement would convey to a reasonable person that repairs would be immediate because the technician would have the parts on hand, which was a false impression.
Consequently, the court found that Reliance had engaged in an unfair practice by posting this representation on its website. The judge noted that this was exactly the type of exaggeration about a material fact that the Consumer Protection Act was designed to prevent. This finding of liability, however, did not lead to a financial windfall for the plaintiff. When the court turned to the issue of damages, it found that Mr. Morrison had not established any pecuniary or out-of-pocket losses directly resulting from the furnace delay or the unfair practice.
Mr. Morrison had requested compensation for the loss of use of the home for himself and his tenants, as well as damages for frustration and loss of enjoyment. He calculated these amounts based on a pro rata portion of the rent and a daily rate of $100 per person. The court rejected these claims, noting that Mr. Morrison and his family did not actually vacate the house and therefore did not incur hotel or alternative accommodation costs. Furthermore, the judge clarified that a plaintiff cannot claim damages on behalf of third parties, such as tenants or family members, who are not parties to the litigation. Regarding the claim for frustration and inconvenience, the court cited legal precedents stating that such non-pecuniary losses are generally not recoverable in this type of consumer dispute unless they involve physical injury or specific recognized exceptions.
In a post-trial submission, Mr. Morrison attempted to expand his claim to include a full refund of all protection plan payments made over nearly 11 years, totaling over $3,200, as well as punitive damages exceeding $26,000. The court refused to consider these new heads of damages, agreeing with Reliance’s counsel that it would be unfair to allow the plaintiff to fundamentally shift the nature of the claim after the evidentiary phase of the trial had concluded. As a result, while the court formally declared that Reliance was liable for an unfair practice under the Consumer Protection Act, it awarded zero dollars in damages to Mr. Morrison. Given the mixed results of the case, where the plaintiff proved a violation of the law but failed to secure a financial award, the judge inclined not to award legal costs to either party.
Read more Ontario legal news here.
