Ontario (Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery) v., 2024 ONCJ 39

CITATION: Ontario (Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery) v. 9764895 Canada Inc., 2024 ONCJ 39 DATE: January 23, 2024 IN THE MATTER OF the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A . and Ontario Regulation 17/05 . Between Ministry of Government and Consumer Services (now known as Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery) prosecutor and 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture, Kulwinder SINGH, and Harminder Singh SANDHU defendants Ontario Court of Justice Brampton, Ontario Quon J.P. Reasons for Judgment Ex-parte Trial held : October 10, 2023 Judgment released : January 23, 2024.

Counsel: Steven Succi , counsel for the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery. 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture, Kulwinder SINGH, and Harminder Singh SANDHU , none of the defendants appeared for the ex-parte trial, nor did anyone appear as counsel or as a legal representative for the defendants. Charges: (1) 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture did fail to deliver to a consumer, a future performance agreement containing the information required by s. 24 of O.

Reg. 17/05 , contrary to 22 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2002 , and thereby committed an offence under s. 116(2) ( counts 13 and 17 ); and (2) 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture did engage in an unfair practice by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation to a consumer, contrary to s. 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act , 2002 , and thereby committed an offence under s.116(1) (b)(ii) ( counts 14 and 18 ); and (3) 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture failed to provide a refund payment to a consumer within 15 days of being given notice of cancellation of the consumer agreement under s. 79(1) of O.

Reg. 17/05 , contrary to s. 96(1) (

a) of the Consumer Protection Act , 2002 , and thereby committed an offence under s. 116(1) (b)(viii) ( count 19 ).

(4) Kulwinder SINGH and Harminder Singh SANDHU being directors or officers of 9764895 Canada Inc. o/a Maple Furniture did fail to prevent 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture from committing the offence of fail to deliver to a consumer, a future performance agreement containing the information required by s. 24 of O. Reg. 17/05 , contrary to s. 22 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2002 , and thereby committed an offence under s.116(3) ( counts 15 and 20 );

(5) Kulwinder SINGH and Harminder Singh SANDHU being directors or officers of 9764895 Canada Inc. o/a Maple Furniture did fail to prevent 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture from committing the offence of engaging in unfair practice to a consumer, contrary to s. 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act , 2002 , and thereby committed an offence under s.116(3) ( counts 16 and 21 );

(6) Kulwinder SINGH and Harminder Singh SANDHU being directors or officers of 9764895 Canada Inc. o/a Maple Furniture did fail to prevent 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture from committing the offence of failed to provide a refund payment to a consumer within 15 days of being given notice of cancellation of the consumer agreement under s. 79(1) of O. Reg. 17/05 , contrary to s. 96(1) (

a) of the Consumer Protection Act , 2002 , and thereby committed an offence under s.116(1) (b)(viii) ( count 22 ); . Cases Considered or Referred To:

Ontario (Ministry of Consumer Services) v. K-Tech Building Systems Inc. , [2012] O.J. No. 1764 (Ont. C.J.) , per Quon J.P. Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. , 2011 ONCA 13 (O.C.A.) , per Watt J.A. Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. , 2010 ONSC 2013 (Ont. S.C.J.) , per Bellamy J. R. v. Elm Tree Nursing Home Inc. , [1987] O.J. No. 491 (QL) (O.C.A.) , per Goodman, Cory and Finlayson JJ.A. Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited: Consumer Protection Act, 2002 , S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched.

A ., ss. 1 , 1 (a), 2(1) , 2(2) , 2(3) , 4 , 5 , 5(1) , 14 , 14(2) , 14(2) (3), 14(2) (8) , 14(2) (9), 15 , 16 , 17(1) , 17(2) 22, 26(2), 79(1), 92, 92(4), 92(5), 94, 95, 96, 96(1), 96(1)(a), 96(6), 116(1), 116(1)(b)(ii), 116(1)(b)(viii), 116(2), and 116(3). Ontario Regulation 17/05 ( Consumer Protection Act, 2002 ), General, ss. 24, 24(2), 24(3), 24(4), 24(5), 24(6), 24(9), 24(10), 24(12), and 79(1). Exhibits entered: Exhibit "1" - package of documents that consist of:

(1) Federal Corporation Information for federal corporation named 9764895 Canada Inc. that was incorporated on May 24, 2016 (with corporation number 976489-5) that indicates it is an active corporation with a registered office address of 7955 Torbram Road, unit #9, Brampton Ontario L6T 5A2, and with 2 named directors of Harminder Singh Sandhu and Kulwinder Singh (3 pages);

(2) Corporate Profile Report and Certificate of Status produced November 29, 2019, of 9764895 Canada Inc. , with Ontario Corporation number 3133948, indicating the corporation commenced in Ontario on May 24, 2016 , and that on May 24, 2016 , Kulwinder Singh was the Director, President, Secretary and Treasurer of the corporation and the registered office of the corporation was 1169 Lorimar Drive, Mississauga, Ontario (2 pages);

(3) List of Current Business Names Registered By A Corporation produced on November 29, 2019, which indicates that the business name of “Maple Furniture” was registered on September 27, 2018 to 9764895 Canada Inc. and would expire on September 26, 2023 (1 page);

(4) Corporation Document List indicating that the person authorized to file the initial return was Kulwinder Singh and was filed on May 26, 2016 (1 page);

(5) List of Expired Business Names Registered by Corporation produced on November 29, 2019 for 9764895 Canada Inc. indicates that there are no expired business names on file (1 page); and

(6) Business Names Report produced on November 29, 2019, that indicates that the business name of “Maple Furniture” with business identification number 281026849 is a business name of 9764895 Canada Inc. and has the business address in Ontario of 7955 Torbram Road, Unit #9, Brampton, Ontario L6T 5G9 and the corporation’s registered address is 2000 Clements Road, Pickering Ontario L1W 4A1 and that it was registered on September 27, 2018 and expires on September 26, 2023 (2 pages) [total package of 10 pages].

Exhibit "2" - copy of Invoice No. 3257 from Maple Furniture of 7955 Torbram Road, Brampton, Ontario L6T 5A2 with telephone number: 905-790-1125 and fax number: 905-790-1973 and email address of “info@maplefurniture.ca” and website of “www.maplefurniture.ca” . The invoice indicates that it was issued on May 2, 2019 to Goutham Nagolu for a “7pcs Dining Set for the amount of $1575 with a “5 years manufacture warranty”. The invoice also indicates in writing that “$1375” [which should have been $1200] was paid to Maple Furniture by Debit on 7 May 2019.

The invoice also indicates that the Total was $1575, a Deposit of $375, and a with Balance Due of $1200 (one page). Exhibit "3" - copies of 4 photographs taken by Goutham Nagolu of the dining room table legs and the stainless steel chair-back pull on the back of the dining room chairs that had been delivered to him by the Maple Furniture store on May 13, 2019 (4 pages) .

Exhibit "4" - copy of emails that Goutham Nagolu had sent to “info@maplefurniture.ca” from Mon, May 13, 2019 at 5:29 PM to Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:18 PM, which also contained images of the chair and dining room table that was ordered and one of the 6 chairs that had been delivered (6 pages).

Exhibit "5" - A clearer copy of the first page of the document that had been previously entered as Exhibit #2: copy of Invoice No. 3257 from Maple Furniture of 7955 Torbram Road, Brampton, Ontario L6T 5A2 with phone number: 905-790-1125 and fax number: 905-790-1973 and email address of “info@maplefurniture.ca” and website of “www.maplefurniture.ca” . The invoice indicates that it was issued on May 2, 2019, to Goutham Nagolu for a “7pcs Dining Set for the amount of $1575 with a “5 years manufacture warranty”.

The invoice also indicates in writing that “$1375” [which should have been $1200] was paid to Maple Furniture by Debit on 7 May 2019. The invoice also indicates that the Total was $1575, a Deposit of $375, and with Balance Due of $1200. On the second page of the document is a photocopy of 3 Customer Copy of debit sales amounts of $1,000, $200, and $375 paid to Maple Furniture, 7955 Torbram Road, Brampton. The $375 debit amount was paid on May 2, 2019 while the $200 and $1000 debits amounts were paid on May 7, 2019 (2 pages).

Exhibit "6" - copy of 3 photographs of the Invoice dated January 1, 2017, that Dahlia White had photographed from Maple Furniture’s copy of her invoice for the bed and bedroom set that had been purchased by Dahlia White on a lay-away plan for a total of $3784 (which included a delivery charge and taxes) and in which White had paid a $200 deposit on January 1, 2017. These photographs of the invoice document also includes handwritten amounts of money and the dates on which Dahlia White had paid those amounts to Maple Furniture on the lay-away plan.

The document also indicates that Dahlia White had paid additional amounts of $200 by Debit on 9 th June, $200 cash on 5 Sep, $200 by Debit on 29 th Nov-17, and a $300 Debit (no date) and that the balance on the lay-away plan after the $1100 of payments White had paid to the Maple Furniture store are deducted is $2684 (3 pages).

Exhibit "7" - copy of email Dahlia White sent to the email address of “info@maplefurniture.ca” on Wednesday, 19 September 2018, 01:05 p.m., in which White mentioned that on 2 occasions the bed was promised to be delivered but was not and that “Randy” called White and said the bed would not be delivered unless White paid another $500 and that “Randy” would not put this agreement in writing. White also requested Maple Furniture assist her in resolving this issue (one page).

Exhibit "8" - copy of email Dahlia White sent to “info@maplefurniture.ca on Monday, 20 January 2020, 02:35 p.m. under the subject heading “Cancellation notice” in which Dahlia White informs the Maple Furniture store that White is cancelling her order at the store at 7955 Torbram Road due to lack of delivery and that White is expecting a refund within five business days. The copy of this email had also been forwarded to Sheldon Pais (MGCS) on January 20, 2020 at 2:37 PM (one page). 1. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] In order to build the goodwill for a retail business, the business generally needs to keep its customers happy.

In order to keep a customer happy, most of us would expect that a retail business that sells furniture would deliver the correct item of furniture that had been ordered by a customer and that when the wrong item had been delivered, that the furniture store would then take back the incorrect item and replace it with the correct piece of furniture.

Or that when a customer enters into an agreement to buy a piece of furniture on a lay-away plan based on the customer making payments to the furniture store toward the full price of that item furniture without incurring interest, we would expect that when the customer completes paying the full amount for that item, that the store would fulfill its promise to deliver that item to the customer, as had been agreed upon, and not withhold that item and ask for more money from the customer before delivering that fully-paid-for piece of furniture to the customer.

However, if that retail furniture business fails to keep those customers happy by not providing those customers with the goods or services that the customers had paid for, then several consequences are possible.

These include the aggrieved customers complaining to the Better Business Bureau, which could then generate negative online reviews for the retail business, or the unhappy costumers could file a complaint with the Ontario Ministry that deals with consumer protection legislation, which could then lead to an investigation of the complaints and possible prosecution under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 , S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched.

A . [ 2 ] In the present case, two unhappy costumers had entered into agreements with a retail furniture business known as “ Maple Furniture” located at Unit #9, 7955 Torbram Road in Brampton, Ontario to purchase furniture. Both costumers, after ordering and fully paying for furniture from the Maple Furniture store, did not receive the furniture that they had specifically ordered and paid for from Maple Furniture.

As well, the two customers had difficulty in getting Maple Furniture to fulfill its promises and legal obligations and in getting Maple Furniture to even respond to their queries or complaints. [ 3 ] For one costumer, Goutham Nagolu, Maple Furniture did not deliver the chairs with the specific chair-back pull mechanism that the Nagolu had ordered and paid for, but had been provided a different set of chairs with a different chair-back pull mechanism that was

of lesser quality and value. In addition, Maple Furniture had delivered a dining room table to that costumer that had one table leg that was shorter than the other table leg by two inches, so that the consumer had to place a piece of Styrofoam-like material under the shorter table leg so the table would not wobble. When Nagolu complained to Maple Furniture about receiving the wrong chairs, Maple Furniture had promised to rectify the problem and replace the chairs.

After making that promise to replace the chairs, Maple Furniture did not replace the chairs nor respond further to Nagolu’s telephone calls or emails that had been sent to the email address of “info@maplefurniture“ that had been provided on the agreement document that had been given to Nagolu by the Maple Furniture store and also given verbally to Nagolu by a representative of the store. [ 4 ] For the second costumer, Dahlia White, White had agreed to purchase from Maple Furniture a bed for her son for $700 and a bedroom set for herself for $2800 that was to be treated as two separate lay-away plans in which Maple Furniture had agreed to deliver the $700 bed to White once White had paid the full amount of $700 for the bed, but then Maple Furniture had failed to deliver the bed as it had promised on two occasions to White after White had fully paid off the $700 for the bed for her son.

Instead, a representative of Maple Furniture had asked White for more money to be paid toward the $2800 bedroom set on the second lay-away plan before the fully-paid-for $700 bed would be delivered. White then made another $400 worth of payments to Maple Furniture, but a representative of Maple Furniture had refused to deliver the bed until another $500 had been paid by White towards the $2800 bedroom set on the second lay-away plan.

When Maple Furniture had refused to deliver the bed again, White emailed Maple Furniture at the email address of “info@maplefurniture“ to inform the store that White would be cancelling her order and requested that Maple Furniture refund the $1100 White had already paid to the store in respect to the two lay-away plans.

However, Maple Furniture did not deliver the fully paid for bed to White, nor refund any money back to White. [ 5 ] In addition, Maple Furniture did not respond to either Goutham Nagolu or Dahlia White when each had respectively complained in writing by email to Maple Furniture’s email address of “info@maplefurniture.ca” that had been provided to both of them.

Both Nagolu and White then filed separate complaints against the business known as “Maple Furniture” with the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services (now known as Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery). [ 6 ] After the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services had received the written complaints from both Goutham Nagolu and Dahlia White about their dealings with Maple Furniture, an investigation was begun by the Ministry into the transactions between those two consumers and the business known as “Maple Furniture”.

After these two complaints were investigated, the Ministry decided to charge 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture (“Maple Furniture”) with committing five offences in respect to the two consumers, as well as charging Kulwinder SINGH and Harminder Singh SANDH, as directors of Maple Furniture, with jointly committing five offences in respect to those two consumers, under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 , S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A . The 10 charges in respect to the two consumers, Goutham Nagolu and Dahlia White (counts #13 to #22) were commenced by a

Part III information sworn on September 20, 2021 (#06606). The information originally contained 22 counts, but counts #1 to #12 were withdrawn by the prosecution at trial. The 10 charges against Maple Furniture were for “failing to provide a ‘proper future performance agreement’” to the two consumers, “engaging in an unfair practice by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation to a consumer”, and “failing to provide a refund to a consumer”. The directors of Maple Furniture were charged with failing to prevent Maple Furniture from committing those offences.

For those 10 counts, the prosecution has met its legal burden in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Maple Furniture has committed the offences of “failing to provide a ‘proper future performance agreement’ to a consumer” set out in count #13, “engaging in an unfair practice by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation to a consumer” set out in counts #14 and #18, and “failing to provide a refund to a consumer” set out in count #18.

For the two directors of Maple Furniture, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they had respectively committed the offences of “failing to prevent Maple Furniture from failing provide a ‘proper future performance agreement’ to a consumer” set out in count #15, “failing to prevent Maple Furniture from engaging in an unfair practice by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation to a consumer” set out in counts #16 and #21, and “failing to prevent Maple Furniture from failing to provide a refund to a consumer” set out in count #22.

The prosecution did not meet its burden in proving Maple Furniture had committed the offence in count #17 of “failing to provide a ‘proper future performance agreement’ to a consumer” nor did it prove that the two directors had respectively committed the offence set out in count #20 of “failing to prevent Maple Furniture from failing provide a ‘proper future performance agreement’ to a consumer”. [ 7 ] Additionally, the three defendants did not appear for their trial that had been scheduled and held on October 10, 2023, so the trial of the 10 charges had been proceeded on an ex-parte trial basis.

After the two consumers had testified and after counsel for the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery had completed his closing submissions, judgment was reserved and adjourned to February 6, 2024, for judgment to be rendered. These, therefore, are the written reasons for judgment released on January 23, 2024: 2. THE CHARGES [ 8 ] The three defendants have been charged with committing offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 in Information #06606.

There were originally 22 counts on that information, but the prosecution had asked for counts #1 to #12 on that information to be withdrawn and that only the remaining counts of #13 to #22 would be proceeded on. The remaining 10 counts (counts #13 to #22) are set out below:

(count #13) 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture on or about the 2 nd day of May, 2019, in the City of Brampton, in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did commit the offence of failing to deliver to Goutham Raj Kumar Nagolu, a consumer, a future performance agreement containing the information required by

section 24 of Ontario Regulation 17/05 , contrary to 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30,

Schedule A , as amended, and thereby committed an offence contrary to subsection 116(2) of the said Act; (count #14) 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture, between the 2 nd day of May, 2019, and the 31 st day of January, 2020, in the City of Brampton, in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did engage in an unfair practice in relation to Goutham Raj Kumar Nagolu, a consumer, by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation, contrary to s. 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30,

Schedule A , as amended, and thereby committed an offence under s. 116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act; (count #15) Kulwinder SINGH and Harminder Singh SANDHU being officers or directors of 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on as Maple Furniture, between the 2 nd day of May, 2019, and the 31 st day of January, 2020, in the City of Brampton, in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did fail to prevent 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture from committing the offence of fail to deliver to Goutham Raj Kumar Nagolu, a consumer, a future performance agreement containing the information required by

section 24 of Ontario Regulation 17/05 , contrary to 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30,

Schedule A , as amended, and thereby committed an offence contrary to subsection 116(3) of the said Act; (count #16) Kulwinder SINGH and Harminder Singh SANDHU being officers or directors of 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on as Maple Furniture, between the 2 nd day of May, 2019, and the 31 st day of January, 2020, in the City of Brampton, in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did fail to prevent 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture from engaging in an unfair practice in relation to Goutham Raj Kumar Nagolu, a consumer, by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation, contrary to s. 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30,

Schedule A , as amended, and thereby committed an offence under s.116(3) of the said Act; (count #17) 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture between the 1 st day of January, 2017 and the 31 st day of January, 2020, in the City of Brampton, in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did commit the offence of failing to deliver to Dahlia White, a consumer, a future performance agreement containing the information required by

section 24 of Ontario Regulation 17/05 , contrary to 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30,

Schedule A , as amended, and thereby committed an offence contrary to subsection 116(2) of the said Act; (count #18) 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture, between the 1 st day of January, 2017 and the 31 st day of January, 2020, in the City of Brampton, in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did engage in an unfair practice in relation to Dahlia White, a consumer, by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation, contrary to s. 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30,

Schedule A , as amended, and thereby committed an offence under s.116(1)(b)(ii) of the said Act;

(count #19) 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture, between the 4 th day of February, 2020 and the 12 th day of August, 2021, in the City of Brampton, in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did commit the offence of fail to refund Dahlia White, a consumer, within fifteen days after the said consumer gave notice of cancellation of a consumer agreement in accordance with the requirements prescribed by subsection 79(1) of Ontario Regulation 17/05 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30,

Schedule A , as amended, contrary to subsection 96(1)(

a) of the said Act, and thereby committed an offence contrary to s.116(1)(b)(viii) of the said Act; (count #20) Kulwinder SINGH and Harminder Singh SANDHU being officers or directors of 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on as Maple Furniture, between the 1 st day of January, 2017 and the 31 st day of January, 2020, in the City of Brampton, in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did fail to prevent 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture from committing the offence of fail to deliver to Dahlia White, a consumer, a future performance agreement containing the information required by

section 24 of Ontario Regulation 17/05 , contrary to 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30,

Schedule A , as amended, and thereby committed an offence contrary to subsection 116(3) of the said Act; (count #21) Kulwinder SINGH and Harminder Singh SANDHU being officers or directors of 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on as Maple Furniture, between the 1 st day of January, 2017 and the 31 st day of January, 2020, in the City of Brampton, in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did fail to prevent 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture from engaging in an unfair practice in relation to Dahlia White, a consumer, by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation, contrary to s. 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30,

Schedule A , as amended, and thereby committed an offence under s.116(3) of the said Act; (count #22) Kulwinder SINGH and Harminder Singh SANDHU being officers or directors of 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on as Maple Furniture, between the 4 th day of February, 2020, and the12 th day of August, 2021, in the City of Brampton, in the Central West Region and elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did fail to prevent 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture from failing to refund Dahlia White, a consumer, within fifteen days after the said consumer gave notice of cancellation of a consumer agreement in accordance with the requirements prescribed by subsection 79(1) of Ontario Regulation 17/05 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30,

Schedule A , as amended, contrary to subsection 96(1)(

a) of the said Act, and thereby committed an offence contrary to s.116(1)(b)(viii) of the said Act; 3. BACKGROUND (

a) Goutham Nagolu’s transaction with Maple Furniture [ 9 ] Goutham Nagolu had observed a dining room set that he was interested in purchasing that was being advertised by the Maple Furniture store on the Facebook Marketplace website. Nagolu and his wife then went to the Maple Furniture store located at Unit #9, 7955 Torbram Road in the City of Brampton to check out the dining room set that he and his wife had been interested in.

He and his wife then found the dining room set on display at the store and then agreed to purchase that specific dining room set that they had observed on display at the Maple Furniture store on May 2, 2019. The set consisted of 6 chairs and a dining room table. The chairs on

display at the store had a particular chair-back pull mechanism with a lion’s head motif on the back of the chairs. It was this specific chair that had the feature of the lion’s head chair-back pull that had been ordered and fully paid for by Nagolu on May 7, 2019. Nagolu had paid the full amount of $1575 upfront to Maple Furniture for the dining room set. The Maple Furniture store promised to deliver the dining room set on May 9, 2019.

Nagolu had initially paid a $375 deposit on May 2, 2019, and then paid the remaining $1200 balance on May 7, 2019, to Maple Furniture for the dining room set that he and his wife had observed on display at the store and then ordered from Maple Furniture.

Nagolu also received a “5 year manufacture warranty” from the store which had been written on the invoice document that had been given to Nagolu on May 2, 2019. [ 10 ] However, when the dining room set was finally delivered by Maple Furniture to Nagolu on May 13, 2019, which was 4 days after Maple Furniture had promised delivery, Nagolu had unpacked one of the dining room chairs and noticed that it did not have the copper or brass coloured lion-head chair-back pull, but a plain steel chair-back pull.

The dining room chairs were not the ones that Nagolu had observed on display at the store and had specifically ordered and fully paid for. Specifically, the chairs did not come with the lion’s head chair-back pull that Nagolu had observed on the chairs on display at the store. The reason that Nagolu had purchased the dining room set had been because of the lion’s head chair-back pull on the back of the chairs. Nagolu then immediately called the person named “Harry” that Nagolu had been dealing with at the store and informed him about getting the wrong chairs.

Nagolu said that Harry had promised to replace the wrong chairs that had been delivered with new chairs. However, Nagolu never did receive the correct chairs from Maple Furniture as had been promised. In addition, Nagolu had to assemble the dining room table himself. One of the table legs for the table was shorter by two inches and uneven compared to the other table leg, so that the assembled table did not sit flat or level on the floor and Nagolu had to place a piece of Styrofoam type of material underneath the short table leg so that the table would not wobble.

As Nagolu did not get what he had ordered and paid for from Maple Furniture, Nagolu had attended the store as well as calling the store, but Maple Furniture did not provide Nagolu with the correct chairs or replace the dining room table that had been covered under the “5 year manufacture warranty” that Maple Furniture had given to Nagolu. In addition, Nagolu had sent emails to the email address of “info@maplefurniture.ca”, which Harry from the Maple Furniture store had told Nagolu to send his emails to, if he wanted to complain to the manager of the store.

Nagolu in his emails to Maple Furniture had also sent photographs of what had been delivered to him and photographs of what he had observed on display at the store, in addition to informing Maple Furniture that he did not get what he had bargained and paid for, in regard to the short table leg and the incorrect chairs being delivered to him. In addition, the email address of “info@maplefurniture.ca” had also been provided on the Maple Furniture invoice document given to Nagolu on May 2, 2019.

However, Nagolu did not receive any reply or response back from Maple Furniture in respect to his telephone calls or emails. Nagolu also complained to the Better Business Bureau, but the Maple Furniture store did not give the Bureau any response to Nagolu’s complaint. Nagolu then filed a complaint with the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services since Maple Furniture did not rectify the issue with the incorrect chairs and the short table leg on the dining room table. (

b) Dahlia White’s transaction with Maple Furniture [ 11 ] Dahlia White had entered the Maple Furniture store located at Unit #9, 7955 Torbram Road in the City of Brampton on January 1, 2017, to look for a bed for her son and ended up entering into an agreement with the Maple Furniture store to buy a bed for her son and a bedroom set for herself on a lay-away plan that required White to make payments toward both items and that when she had paid fully for the bed for her son the store would deliver the bed to White. The bed for her son would cost $700 and the bedroom set for herself would cost $2800.

The total amount that White would have to pay to Maple Furniture was $3784, which included a delivery charge and taxes. After White had paid the full amount of $700 on that lay-away plan for the bed for her son, arrangements had been made with Maple Furniture to deliver the bed. White then took the day off from work to wait for the delivery of the bed for her son, but the Maple Furniture store did not deliver the bed as they had promised to White.

White then spoke with the person named “Randy” from the Maple Furniture store and White said that Randy had informed White that the bed would not be delivered until White had paid more money on the bedroom set that she had also purchased on the lay-away plan. White then paid another $400 to the Maple Furniture store, but the store still did not deliver the bed for her son. “Randy” then called White and told White that the bed would not be delivered until White had paid another $500 to Maple Furniture.

White then sent an email to Maple Furniture to the email address of “info@maplefurniture” to complain about not getting delivery of the $700 bed and “Randy” wanting another $500 before the bed would be delivered. However, Maple Furniture did not respond back to White or resolve the issue with White.

White then filed a complaint with the Ministry for Consumer Services and then someone from Maple Furniture had telephoned White and informed White that if White signed a document saying that all issues had been resolved, then the Maple Furniture store would deliver the $700 bed and that she would get a store credit for the additional $400 that White had already paid to the store. White replied to the representative from Maple Furniture that she would not sign the document until after the $700 bed had been first delivered.

White also sent an email on January 20, 2020 to the email address of “info@maplefurniture” which was the email address for the Maple Furniture store that was displayed on the invoice document that White had received from the store on January 1, 2017, that she was cancelling her order with the Maple Furniture store due to Maple Furniture’s lack of delivery and requested a refund of the $1100 that she had paid to the Maple Furniture store. However, White did not receive the bed for her son nor get a refund of the $1100 that White had paid to the Maple Furniture store. (

c) The Ministry of Government and Consumer Services charges the defendants with committing offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 , S.O. 2002 on October 1, 2021

[ 12 ] After the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services investigated Goutham Nagolu’s and Dahlia White’s complaints about the Maple Furniture store, the Ministry charged 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture (“Maple Furniture”) with committing five offences in respect to the two consumers and charged Kulwinder SINGH and Harminder Singh SANDH, as directors of 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture, with jointly committing five offences in respect to the two consumers, under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 , S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A . The 10 charges were commenced by a

Part III information sworn on September 20, 2021 (#06606) and are set out in counts #13 to #22. [ 13 ] A summons was then served by registered mail on 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture at 2000 Clements Road in Pickering, Ontario L1W 4A1 on October 1, 2021, to appear on November 9, 2021, in courtroom B2 at 9:00 a.m. In addition, a summons was served by registered mail on Kulwinder Singh at 73 Sugarcane Ave., Brampton, Ontario L6R 0E6 on October 1, 2021, to appear on November 9, 2021, in courtroom B2 at 9:00 a.m.

Furthermore, a summons was served by registered mail on Harminder Singh Sandhu at 2000 Clements Road in Pickering, Ontario L1W 4A1 on October 1, 2021, to appear on November 9, 2021, in courtroom B2 at 9:00 a.m. The defendants did appear in court on the first appearance date of November 9, 2021, but have failed to make any further court appearances not since that date. (

d) Testimony of Goutham Nagolu [ 14 ] Goutham Nagolu testified that he lived in Malton from 2018 until 2021. Nagolu also said that he is familiar with a business named “Maple Furniture” and that he had first come to know of them from the internet, off of Google, when he was online browsing through Facebook on the internet. Nagolu then said that in his browsing, he had found one specific dining room set which consisted of a dining table and six chairs that had been showcased in Facebook Marketplace, that his wife and himself had liked.

Nagolu then said that his wife and himself decided to go to the showroom to see how that dining room set had looked and how it would feel. [ 15 ] Nagolu then said that he and his wife went to the Maple Furniture store located at 7955 Torbram Road in Brampton on May 2, 2019, to look for that dining room set. Nagolu then said that when he and his wife walked into the Maple Furniture store and showed someone at the store the picture that Nagolu had seen on Facebook Marketplace, and then asked if Maple Furniture had that particular dining room set on the floor so that Nagolu and his wife can look at it.

Nagolu then said that the person from Maple Furniture had told Nagolu that the store had that particular set on display. And then Nagolu said that he and his wife walked onto the first floor from the ground floor and then saw the dining room set on the first floor of that two-floor store.

Nagolu then said that he and his wife liked the dining set that they saw on display at the Maple Furniture store, so he and his wife decided to order the set. [ 16 ] Nagolu then explained that the dining room set had consisted of a six-foot table that could be extended by one and a half feet more, and that it was a rustic brown-coloured table. He also said that the set came with six beige-coloured chairs with wooden legs.

He also said that he and his wife had liked the chairs because the chairs had a really nice design with a specific logo of a lion’s head on the back of those chairs where the pull-out levers or chair pull-up mechanism was located so that it could be used to drag the chair right and left. Nagolu also said that those particular chairs had really went well with the table, and that is why he and his wife dad had liked those particular chairs. Nagolu then said that he and his wife had decided to place the order for the dining room set with those particular chairs to be delivered.

Nagolu also said there that were no other similar type of chairs that had been shown to him. [ 17 ] In addition, Nagolu said that he had ordered the dining room set on May 2, 2019. After inquiring about the process of ordering the dining set, Nagolu said he was told that he had to leave a deposit of a certain amount. Nagolu then said that he paid the Maple Furniture store a deposit of $375 and that when Nagolu had been ready to place the order in full, Nagolu said the person at the Maple Furniture store had told Nagolu that the Maple Furniture store would only accept debit or cash.

And because Nagolu did not have enough cash in hand, Nagolu said that he had told the person at the Maple Furniture store that Nagolu would come back. Nagolu also said the person at the Maple Furniture store had told Nagolu that Nagolu had to pay the full amount for the dining room set before the dining room set would be delivered. Nagolu then said that he left the store with the thinking that he would return in a day or two. Nagolu then said that he and his wife had decided to pay the Maple Furniture store the full amount for the dining room set in order to arrange for the delivery of the set.

In addition, the person at the Maple Furniture store insisted that Nagolu had to pay the full amount by debit or by cash, especially cash, but Nagolu said that after he had read the Google reviews, Nagolu was a little skeptical of paying in cash because Nagolu would then not have any record of making the payment if Nagolu paid the Maple Furniture store the full amount in cash. Nagolu then said that he had decided to pay the store with a debit card transaction.

Nagolu said that after he had paid the Maple Furniture store the initial deposit of $375, Nagolu then walked into the Maple Furniture store 3 or 4 days later and paid the balance of $1200 in full. After he paid the store in full for the dining room set, Nagolu said the person at the store said delivery of the dining room set would be arranged for May 9 th , 2019.

However, Nagolu said that he had waited on May 9 th for the delivery of the set, but the Maple Furniture store people did not show up on May 9 th, so Nagolu called the store and the person from the Maple Furniture store said the delivery of the dining room set would be rescheduled for a later date. Nagolu then said the store had delivered the dining room set to his residence 3 or 4 days after May 9 th . [ 18 ] When asked if Nagolu had remembered who he had talked to at the Maple Furniture store, Nagolu replied that he did not think

that the people that Nagolu had talked to at the store had been using their original names Moreover, Nagolu said that he had been talking with two guys at the store. Nagolu then said that one of the guys had been using the popular name of “Harry”. And for the other guy, Nagolu said that he does not know what that other guy’s name was or that Nagolu does not presently remember that other guy’s name.

However, Nagolu said that the guy that Nagolu had dealt with for 99% of the time at the store had been named “Harry”. [ 19 ] In addition, Nagolu had identified the document that had been entered as Exhibit #2 was the invoice document that Nagolu had received from the Maple Furniture store and that the invoice had contained the business name of “Maple Furniture” on it and the store address of 7955 Torbram Road in Brampton. [ 20 ] Nagolu also said that he did visit the website for the Maple Furniture store, but Nagolu said that particular website is not static, nor is it user-friendly.

Nagolu then said that it had been just a domain name and that information does not pop up. [ 21 ] Furthermore, Nagolu said that he did use the email address for the Maple Furniture store when Nagolu had issues with the delivery of the dining room set. Nagolu then explained that the first thing that he did had been to call the store to let them know that the items he had received had not been the ones that Nagolu had seen on display at the store nor the furniture that he had specifically ordered.

In addition, Nagolu said he had sent to the email address of “info@maplefurniture.ca” for the Maple Furniture store, pictures that he had taken of what the items that had been delivered to him with an explanation of what had been the problem with what the Maple Furniture store had delivered to Nagolu.

Furthermore, Nagolu also said that he had emailed the Maple Furniture store multiple times. [ 22 ] When asked about the delivery date on the invoice document entered as Exhibit #2, Nagolu said that he did not think he had written any date there because he had asked the person at the Maple Furniture store to put his correct name on that document and that when Nagolu had asked the Maple Furniture store person to correct the error in respect to Nagolu’s name, the Maple Furniture store person corrected Nagolu’s name.

Moreover, Nagolu also said the invoice document had mentioned the dining room set had been a seven-piece dining set that would come with a five-year warranty, which had been a promise from the Maple Furniture store. However, Nagolu said that the Maple Furniture store person did not initially write the statement about the warranty and only after Nagolu insisted that the warranty statement be written on the invoice document did the person write on the invoice that there would be a five-year warranty promise. In addition, Nagolu stated that the delivery date had not been written on the invoice document.

Nagolu then said that the person at the Maple Furniture store had said that the dining room set that he had ordered and paid for in full would be delivered on May 9th. [ 23 ] Moreover, Nagolu said that the May 2 nd date that is written down on the delivery date line on the invoice document entered as Exhibit #2 had been actually the date that Nagolu had entered into the agreement with the Maple Furniture store to purchase the dining room set and does not believe that the May 2 nd date had been the intended delivery date of the dining room set. [ 24 ] Furthermore, Nagolu said that the seven-piece dining set that he had purchased from the Maple Furniture store that consisted of one dining table and six chairs had been for the amount $1575 in total. [ 25 ] For the “5 year manufacture warranty” that had been written on the invoice document that he had received from the Maple Furniture store, Nagolu said that when he had asked the person at the Maple Furniture store if the dining room set came with a warranty, Nagolu said that the person had informed Nagolu that it came with a five-years manufacturing warranty for any defects or any other issues that Nagolu might see. [ 26 ] Also on the invoice document, Nagolu said that “Harry” had written that $1375 [but should have written $1200] had been paid to Maple Furniture by debit on the 7th of May when Nagolu had returned to the store to pay the balance that was due of $1200 for the dining room set, after he had paid a deposit of $375 on May 2 nd .

Nagolu also said that on the invoice document “Harry” had crossed off the “2 nd ” of May and then kept it as the “7 th ”. And, Nagolu then said that he had paid the balance due of $1,200 on the 7 th and that the payments consisted of $200 and $1,000 amounts for which Nagolu said he had the debit receipts for all three payments that he had made to the Maple Furniture store for the dining room set (see Exhibit #5). [ 27 ] Nagolu also said that he had paid the amount of $375 to the Maple Furniture store as a deposit on May 2 nd, at 2013 hours, so that he could order the dining room set.

[ 28 ] In addition, Nagolu said that originally the person at the Maple Furniture store had told him that they would deliver the dining room set on May 9th, 2019, but that they did not deliver the dining room set until on May 13 th , 2019, which had been three or four days after the date they had promised. [ 29 ] Nagolu then said that a person from the store had scheduled the delivery for May 13th, and the Maple Furniture store delivered the items at noon or before noon on May 13th.

And because of his own curiosity, Nagolu said that he had opened up the dining room set as soon as it was delivered, but immediately noticed that he did not receive the chairs that he had ordered from the Maple Furniture store. Nagolu then explained that he had gotten different chairs and not the ones that he and his wife had ordered. So, Nagolu then said that he called the Maple Furniture store to inform the store that Nagolu had received a different set of chairs than the ones that he had ordered.

Nagolu then said that the person from the store told him that the store would rectify the problem with the chairs in a week’s time frame. However, Nagolu said that there had been no communication from anyone from the Maple Furniture store in regard to rectifying the issue with the wrong chairs being delivered to him. [ 30 ] In addition, Nagolu then explained why the six dining room chairs that he had received from the Maple Furniture store were not the chairs that he had observed on display at the store, nor the ones that he had ordered on May 2, 2019 and fully paid for on May 7, 2019.

In his explanation, Nagolu said that the chair-back pulls on the chairs on display at the store had a lion’s head design with a copper or brass finish, but the chair-pulls on the chairs that he had received form Maple Furniture were just steel rings with a plain design and did not have that lion’s head designed chair-back pull that he had ordered. Nagolu also said he had taken a photograph of the back of one of the chairs that had been delivered to him, to show why he did not get the chairs that he had ordered and paid for (see Exhibit #3).

Nagolu also said that he had provided his photos of the type of chair that had been delivered to him to the investigator from Consumer Services. [ 31 ] Moreover, Nagolu said that the second photograph (in Exhibit #3) that he had taken of the chair that had been delivered to him showed the studs on the chair. However, Nagolu said those studs were also supposed to have been the same color as the lion’ head chair-back pull that Nagolu was supposed to have gotten.

Moreover, Nagolu said the studs were also supposed to have a brass or copper look, but the studs on the chairs that had been delivered to him were just steel ones and not the type of studs that were on the chairs that he had ordered. [ 32 ] For the third and fourth photographs that Nagolu had taken in Exhibit #3, Nagolu said that they were of the table leg on the dining room table that had been delivered to him.

Nagolu then described that the problem with the table leg was that it was not straight and a little off from the other table leg, so Nagolu said that he had to place thermocol or Styrofoam-type material underneath that shorter table leg so that the table would sit straight on the floor.

In addition, Nagolu said that this uneven and shorter table leg would be a manufacturing defect, which was supposed to be covered under his “ 5 year manufacture warranty”. [ 33 ] In addition, Nagolu said that he and his father had been the ones who had assembled the chairs and dining room table after the unassembled dining room set was delivered to him. Nagolu then said that when he opened the box for the chairs, he quickly realized that the chairs was not the right ones, but the table had been similar to what he had ordered.

After Nagolu assembled one of the chairs, he took photographs of that chair and sent the photographs to the Maple Furniture store to show that he did not receive the right chairs. Nagolu then said he put the remaining boxes containing the other five chairs aside, believing that he would need to send the chairs back when the Maple Furniture store would deliver him the correct chairs that Nagolu was supposed to have gotten.

However, Nagolu said that he did assemble the dining room table. [ 34 ] Furthermore, Nagolu said that he did not observe the model of the chair with the steel studs and steel ring chair-pull that had been delivered to him, being on display at the Maple Furniture store when Nagolu was at the store. To reiterate, Nagolu said that he had received the wrong chairs but the correct table.

However, Nagolu said the correct table had been defective with that shorter or uneven table leg that was about 2 to 2 ½ inches shorter than the other table leg, so he had to place that Styrofoam-type material underneath the defective table leg so that the table would sit level. [ 35 ] Nagolu also said that he had called the Maple Furniture store right away on May 13 th after he had noticed that he had received the wrong chairs, but before he had decided to assemble the dining room table.

Nagolu said that when he called the store, Nagolu informed “Harry” from the store that Nagolu had ordered a different dining room set. Nagolu had also taken photographs of what Nagolu was supposed to get and had also taken photographs of the dining room set that Nagolu had ordered and had been on display at the store when Nagolu had been inside the store. Nagolu also said that he had informed Harry from the Maple Furniture store that Nagolu was supposed to get different dining room chairs and not the ones that had been delivered.

Nagolu then said that “Harry” had apologized to him and told Nagolu that Harry would look into it and that the store would get it corrected in the near future and that the store would check with their supplier to see if the supplier had sent the wrong piece. Nagolu said that “Harry” had been okay in his response on Nagolu’s first call about getting the wrong chairs being delivered, but then after that first call to the store, Nagolu said there had been no more responses from “Harry”.

[ 36 ] In addition, Nagolu said that on that May 13 th telephone conversation with “Harry” from the Maple Furniture store, Nagolu said that “Harry” had confirmed that the chairs would be replaced, even after Nagolu had used the chairs. Nagolu also said that “Harry” had told Nagolu to keep using the chairs that had been delivered until Nagolu got the new chairs.

Moreover, Nagolu said “Harry “also told Nagolu that as soon as Nagolu get the new chairs, the Maple Furniture store were going to take back the old chairs. [ 37 ] Furthermore, Nagolu said that he had to send the Maple Furniture store an email on the same day of May 13 th after he had telephoned the store and spoke to “Harry” about receiving the wrong chairs, so that Nagolu would have something documented that Nagolu had received the wrong chairs. Nagolu confirmed that the email that he had sent to the Maple Furniture store had been dated May 13th, 2019 at 5.29 p.m.

In that email, Nagolu said that he had written that Nagolu was supposed to get chairs with the lion’s head chair-back pulls. Nagolu also said that his email to Maple Furniture also contained photographs that showed the type of chair that he was supposed to have gotten and that these photographs had been ones of the table and the dining room chairs that Nagolu had ordered and that had been on display in the store, and that those photographs had been taken by him while he had been inside the Maple Furniture store when Nagolu had been in the store ordering the dining room set.

Furthermore, Nagolu said that the photographs had been of the dining room set on display that he had seen in the store and then ordered. Moreover, Nagolu said that he and his wife had wanted the exact dining room set that had been on display in the store and had been the set that he had ordered and paid for in full.

Nagolu also said that he had sent the Maple Furniture store the photograph of the chair that he had assembled and had attached that photograph with his email, along with the photograph he took of the chair on display at the store, so that the two types of chairs could be differentiated. [ 38 ] In addition, Nagolu said that he had sent the email to the email address of “info@maplefurniture.ca” which is the email set out on the invoice document that he had received from the Maple Furniture store.

After he had sent the email about getting the wrong chairs, Nagolu said that he did not get an email response from the Maple Furniture store, nor any other response from the store, and that the only telephone conversation he had with someone from the store about getting the wrong chairs had been on May 13th. [ 39 ] Furthermore, Nagolu said that he also sent the Maple Furniture store another email containing photographs that he had taken of the table leg on the dining room table and about the problem with the short or uneven table leg on the dining room table being short by two inches and not sitting even on the floor.

Nagolu also said that he had asked the Maple Furniture store to look into the dining table problem and to update Nagolu about the fix and the manufacturer’s warranty. Furthermore, Nagolu said that he had sent this email the next day after the dining room set had been delivered because he did not assemble the table until the following day after the set had been delivered. Nagolu said that because the store had told him that the store wanted to replace the chairs, Nagolu decided to install and assemble the dining room table.

Nagolu then said that it was only after he had assembled the table, that Nagolu had realized that the table was not sitting straight, so he had placed white thermocol or Styrofoam under the defective table leg to level it and to make the table sit straight. [ 40 ] In addition, Nagolu said that he had referenced the invoice number on his email that he had sent on May 14 th , 2019, to the Maple Furniture store’s email address of “info@maplefurniture.ca”.

Also, Nagolu said that he decided to do these emails because as soon as he got delivery of the dining room set, Nagolu went to look at the reviews online about the Maple Furniture store and said that the reviews were bad.

At that point, Nagolu said that he had decided to communicate with the Maple Furniture store in emails and in parallel to the telephone call he had made to the store, so that Nagolu would have some documentary evidence that Nagolu had received the wrong chairs when compared to what Nagolu had ordered. [ 41 ] For the email that Nagolu had sent to the Maple Furniture store on May 14th, 2019, Nagolu said that he did not get any response from Maple Furniture. In addition, Nagolu said that he believes that the website or email address is not functional and that there is nothing there.

However, he also said that his emails did not bounce back to him, so that his emails must have went through to the Maple Furniture store. However, Nagolu said that he thinks the Maple Furniture store is just ignoring his emails. [ 42 ] Furthermore, Nagolu also said that he had tried to telephone the store for an update about the chairs, but nobody answered, so Nagolu said he sent another email on May 14 th to the Maple Furniture store to the email address of “info@maplefurniture.ca” inquiring about an update in respect to the wrong chairs that he had received.

Nagolu also said that there had been no indication that the email about getting an update on the wrong chairs had not been received by the Maple Furniture store. Nagolu also said that he did not receive any response to this particular email. [ 43 ] Nagolu also said that he had sent another an email on June 25th, 2019, to the Maple Furniture store because Nagolu, his brother, and his wife had gone to the Maple Furniture store at the end of May or the third week of May, due to not receiving any response from the Maple Furniture store.

Nagolu said that “Harry” then became very abusive towards Nagolu’s wife and then “Harry” went at Nagolu’s brother in order to fight Nagolu’s brother. Nagolu then said that he, his brother, and his wife went to the nearest police station to file a complaint, but the police advised Nagolu that it had been a private matter and that Nagolu should take his complaint to the

Consumer Protection people. Nagolu said that he then sent that June 25th, 2019 email informing the Maple Furniture store that he was giving the store final notice before he placed a complaint with the Ministry and Consumer Protection people.

Nagolu said that he still did not receive any response from the Maple Furniture store in response to that June 25 th email. [ 44 ] Furthermore, Nagolu said that he had emailed the Maple Furniture store several times and had called the store on their business telephone number of 905-790-1125 to try to resolve his dining room set issues, but nothing happened on Maple Furniture’s part, so Nagolu decided to file a complaint with the Consumer Services people. [ 45 ] Moreover, Nagolu said that he had telephoned the Maple Furniture store several times and on a couple occasions when a different lady answered the telephone call, the lady would ask for Nagolu’s invoice number, but soon as Nagolu gave the woman his invoice number for the dining room set, the lady would tell Nagolu that she would get back to Nagolu and then the woman would never call back. [ 46 ] Nagolu also said he had contacted the “Better Business Bureau” on May 29th, 2019, with a complaint about the Maple Furniture store, but the Better Business Bureau told Nagolu to file a case with the consumer court and also told Nagolu that the Bureau can only list or mark the Maple Furniture store for being faulty.

In addition, the Better Business Bureau informed Nagolu that the Maple Furniture store was not responding to the Bureau about Nagolu’s compliant. [ 47 ] In addition, Nagolu said that no other furniture store or other company has ever contacted him about rectifying the issue with the chairs or the dining room table. [ 48 ] Nagolu also said that the chairs that he had ordered and purchased from the Maple Furniture store were more premium and of different material than the chairs that he had received from the Maple Furniture store. [ 49 ] Furthermore, when asked about the price difference or value between the chairs he had received from the Maple Furniture store and the chairs he had ordered and paid for, Nagolu said that he had asked the person from the Maple Furniture store over the telephone about receiving the steel chair-pull version of the chairs.

Nagolu then said that the person from Maple Furniture had informed that Nagolu that Nagolu had received the cheaper version of the dining room set that the store carried and then told Nagolu that the price difference had been $275. Finally, Nagolu said that telephone conversation with the person from the Maple Furniture store had been the last communication that he had with anyone from the Maple Furniture store. (

e) Testimony of Dahlia White [ 50 ] Dahlia White testified that she resides in the City of Brampton and is aware of a company called “Maple Furniture” as she had done business with them sometime in 2017, by entering into an agreement with them to purchase a bedroom set for herself and a bed for her son, who was 17 or 18 years old at that time.

White also said she had become aware of Maple Furniture when she had first driven by and saw the Maple Furniture store which was located in Brampton. [ 51 ] White also said she does not recall when she had gone to the furniture store, but she did say that she had gone into the store initially to lay-away a bed for her son. White further said that while she was in the store she had seen a bed that she had liked for her son. In addition, White said that she had also seen a bedroom set that she also liked and thought of getting it for herself.

White then said that the person who had attended to her at the time was named “Randy” and that White had told Randy that she would lay-away on the bed for her son and then then later she would lay-away the bedroom set for herself after she had collected the money for her son’s bed. White then said that “Randy” had then informed her that White could do lay-aways together for the bed and the bedroom set, and that when White had paid in full for the bed for her son, then the bed for her son would be delivered and that White would continue to make payments on the lay-away for the bedroom set for herself.

White then said that is what she did. White also said that the bed for her son was a wood-framed double bed that had cost $700. [ 52 ] As for the bedroom set that was on the laid-away plan for herself, White said that the set consisted of a bed, a headboard, a dresser, and two side tables that were made of wood with a drawer. White also said that the bedroom set would cost her $2,800. White also confirmed that “Randy” had offered to White that White could put both the bed for her son and the bedroom set for herself on lay- away plan of purchase.

[ 53 ] In addition White said that the term “lay-away” had meant to her that she would pay the Maple Furniture store different payments until it had been paid in full, and that she did not have a specific time to make the payment, and that she would just keep making the payments, and that when each item had been fully paid, then the bed for her son and the bedroom set for herself would be delivered separately. [ 54 ] When White was asked for clarification on whether White had been required to pay the total amount for both the bed for her son and the bedroom set for herself in full before White would take delivery of both, White said that the idea had been to pay fully for the bed for her son first, since originally that had been why she had originally gone to the store.

However, White said that when she had gone into the store and had been told that she could put both the bed for her son and the bedroom set for herself on lay-away, then her plan had changed because she did not know that she could do them both on lay-away together. So after “Randy” told White that she could do them together on lay-away and also that when the bed for her son had been fully paid for, then White would get the bed for her son delivered and that White would then continue with the lay-away payments for the bedroom set that was for herself.

Specifically, White said that the idea had been to make payments towards the $700 for the bed for her son and that once the $700 had been paid in full, then Maple Furniture would deliver the bed for her son. [ 55 ] In authenticating the document, which was the agreement between White and Maple Furniture, White said that “Randy” had given White one copy of the agreement and that Randy had kept one copy for himself.

However, White said that she had mislaid her copy of the agreement, so White said that she had gone to the store and said that Randy had given her a copy of his copy of that agreement, which is the same as the copy of the agreement that she originally had obtained from Randy and which is the copy that was now being presented as three photographs to the court as Exhibit #6. White also said that she had taken the three photographs of Randy’s copy of their agreement to buy the bed for her son and the bedroom set for herself on lay-away.

In addition, White said that the writing from the top to the bottom in the copy of the agreement, were the record of the payments that White had made to Maple Furniture. Furthermore, White said the agreement had mentioned that the $700 had been for the bed that was for her son. White also said that she recalls making a $200 debit payment to Maple Furniture on June 9 th , 2017 .

White then said that the copy of the agreement indicates that $200 in cash had been paid on the 5th of September, and then the new balance was indicated as $3184, and then the agreement document indicates that a $200 debit had been made on the 29th of November, 2017, and then there is a new balance indicated as $2984, and then the debit payment of $300 had been made without a date being indicated on the document, and then the new balance was indicated as $2684.

White then said that there was $300 debit sale receipt attached with the name of Maple Furniture at the top of the receipt. [ 56 ] In addition, White said that she recalls that she had paid a total of $1100 to Maple Furniture, so that the $300 debit payment would have been made after the 29th of November 2017, the date indicated in the invoice document when the last $200 payment had been made. White also confirmed that she had made that $300 payment.

Moreover, White said that the last payment of $300 that she had made to Maple Furniture would have been made before September 19th, 2018, since she recalls that Randy had requested that she had to pay $500 more to get the bed when she had attended the store.

Furthermore, White confirmed that the balance indicated on the agreement document entered as Exhibit #6 is $2684, which is the balance after the $1100 in payments that she had already made to Maple Furniture Store is deducted. [ 57 ] In addition, White said that the agreement had contained a fine print agreement for the lay-away and that she could see her signature on the agreement. [ 58 ] White also said that Maple Furniture had not delivered the bed for her son and then explained that she had continued making the payments to Maple Furniture for her son’s bed and that when her son’s bed had been fully paid for, White then said that she had made an arrangement with “Randy” for the bed for her son to be delivered.

White also said that “Randy” had given her a date for the delivery, but she does not recall the exact date, but that she remembers that she had taken time off from work. White then said that the delivery date for her son’s bed that had been arranged with “Randy” would have been before September of 2018. However, on the date that she had taken time off from work for the delivery of the bed for her son, White said that the bed had not been delivered.

She also said that Maple Furniture did not call her about the bed not being delivered, so White said that she had went to the store to inquire what had happened with her son’s bed. White then said that “Randy” had told her that he needed White to pay more money towards the lay-away for the bedroom set that been put on lay-away for her. White then said that she had asked “Randy” for how much more should White have to pay to get delivery of the bed for her son and White said that “Randy” had told her that she would have to pay $200 more.

White then said she had paid Maple Furniture the $200 more that had been requested by “Randy”. After paying the $200, White said that Randy and herself had made another date for the delivery of the bed for her son. However, the day before the bed was to be delivered, White said that “Randy” had called her and said that “Randy” was not going to deliver the bed because “Randy” still needed White to put more money down on the lay-away for the $2800 bedroom set.

White then asked “Randy” about how much more would she have to pay, and “Randy” had told her that he would get back to her with the answer, but “Randy” did not call her back with the amount. White also recalls that “Randy” had called her requesting more money on a date before September 19 th because September 19 th had been the day she had attended the store.

At the store on September 19 th , White said that she had told “Randy” that he did not call her back with the amount she had to pay in order to get delivery of her son’s bed and then asked “Randy” how much more she had to put down on the lay- away for the $2800 bedroom set and “Randy” responded that White had to pay $500 more. White then told “Randy” that she would put $500 more on the lay-away for the $2800 bedroom set, but that she would need a written agreement because “Randy” had broken his promises before that he would deliver the bed for her son.

However, “Randy” told White that he would not be able to do a written agreement with White. White then said that she had told “Randy” that she did not trust him anymore and that she would not give

“Randy” any more money, and that “Randy” had already taken over $700 from her, but would not deliver the bed for her son. White then told “Randy” that she wanted to speak with the manager of the store and that “Randy” had then given her an email address in order to speak with the manager.

White then said she had sent a complaint to that email address which she recalled had been “Maple something”. [ 59 ] After White had been shown a document (entered as Exhibit #7), White said the document was the email that she had sent to the Maple Furniture store to complain about what had happened with “Randy” and that “Randy” did not deliver the bed for her son, and the issue that she had been having with “Randy”. White said that she had been hoping that the manager could resolve the issue about not delivering the bed that she had bought for her son.

White then said that the email document had indicated that she had sent the email to Maple Furniture on Wednesday, September 19 th , 2018 at 1:05 p.m. to “info@maplefurniture.ca”, which was the email address that “Randy” had provided to White. [ 60 ] White then said that her email had indicated that she had started a lay-away plan for a bed and a bedroom set at the store and that she would get the bed first, then the bedroom set next, and that on two occasions there had been plans for delivery of the bed but the bed had not been delivered.

And White had also indicated that because “Randy” had asked for $500 more to be paid on the lay-away for the $2800 bedroom set and that she had requested a written agreement from “Randy” for delivery of the bed if she paid the $500, but that “Randy” had refused to give her a written agreement.

And White further wrote that after those two occasions in which “Randy” had promised to deliver the bed, but did not deliver the bed, White no longer trusted “Randy” anymore and that White would not put any more money down on the lay-away plan for the $2800 bedroom set, so that White was asking Maple Furniture for help to resolve this issue. [ 61 ] White also confirmed that “Randy” had represented to White that sending an email to “info@maplefurniture.ca” had been how White was supposed to get in touch with the management of Maple Furniture.

However, White said that she did not receive any response by email from the manager of Maple Furniture, but that when she complained to Consumer Services, White said that somebody from the store had called her and told White that they were going to deliver the bed, but before the bed would be delivered White would have to sign a paper that all the issues with Maple Furniture had been resolved.

White then said that she had told the male caller from Maple Furniture that they had already received $1,100 from White and that the bed for her son had cost only $700, so she had asked what would happen with the rest of the money that she had already paid to Maple Furniture. White said that the male caller then informed her that Maple Furniture would give her a store credit for the other $400.

White then said she told the male caller that she did not want to do business with Maple Furniture anymore and that they had wanted her to sign this paper that all the issues were resolved before the bed had been delivered, so White said that she would not sign the paper until the bed had been first delivered. White then said that White had been unable to resolve anything with Maple Furniture.

White also said that since she had contacted Consumer Services in early 2019, the telephone call from the male person from Maple Furniture would have been made in late 2019, in December of 2019 or in early 2020. [ 62 ] White then said that after that telephone call from the man from Maple Furniture, she did not have any further communication from Maple Furniture. [ 63 ] However, after being shown another document (Exhibit #8), White said the contents of that document is an email that White had sent to Maple Furniture on January 20, 2020, under the subject line that stated “Cancellation” and which also informed Maple Furniture that White was cancelling her order for the bed and the bedroom set and that she had wanted a refund of the money that she had already paid them.

In addition, White said that her email to Maple Furniture had been forwarded to Sheldon Pais, who White said works with Consumer Services and had formed part of the written complaint that she had filed with Consumer Services.

White also said that she had been told to send all her documents to Consumer Services in respect to her transaction with Maple Furniture. [ 64 ] White then said that she now remembers that after the January 20, 2020 email had been sent to Maple Furniture, she then received that telephone call from the man from Maple Furniture, who had wanted White to sign the document that would state that the issues White had with Maple Furniture had been resolved.

In addition, White said that the telephone call had been made by that male person after that January 20, 2020 email White had sent to Maple Furniture and that White also did not believe that the man had identified himself to her during that telephone conversation. Furthermore, White said that she remembers that there had been a little riff with that male caller on the telephone because they were not able to come to an agreement with her complaint about not getting her bed delivered by Maple Furniture and the caller wanting White to sign this document before Maple Furniture would deliver the bed to her.

Furthermore, White also said that she did not receive any refund of the $1100 from Maple Furniture after she had sent Maple Furniture that January 20, 2020 email cancelling her order and requesting a refund of the $1100 that White had paid to Maple Furniture, nor did White receive any further response from Maple Furniture in respect to her notice of cancellation and her request for a refund. And, White also said that she did not receive delivery of either the bed for her son or the bedroom set that she had ordered for herself from Maple Furniture. (

f) The two witnesses gave credible testimony

[ 65 ] Both witnesses who testified at trial, Goutham Nagolu and Dahlia White, were credible witnesses. Neither gave exaggerated narratives of their interaction or conversations with representatives from the Maple Furniture store. Moreover, both of their accounts of their dealings with the Maple Furniture store were logical, uncontradicted, consistent, and plausible, and were supported by the documentary and photographic evidence. (

g) The corporate defendant [ 66 ] The corporate defendant, 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture, is a retail company that sells furniture to the public . The retail premises where furniture is sold to the public is located at Unit #9, 7955 Torbram Road, Brampton, Ontario. Its head office is located at 2000 Clements Road in Pickering, Ontario. [ 67 ] In addition, the corporate defendant is a federally-incorporated company (Exhibit #1) and has been registered with Ontario’s Ministry of Government Services as Ontario Corporation Number 3133948 to operate in the Province of Ontario (Exhibit #1) commencing on May 24, 2016. It was incorporated under the

Canada Business Corporations Act on May 24, 2016. The corporate defendant had also registered the business name of “Maple Furniture” in Ontario as of September 27, 2018 (Exhibit #1). The corporate defendant’s head office is located at 2000 Clements Road, Pickering, Ontario (Exhibit #1). Its business under the business name of “Maple Furniture” involves principally the sale of furniture to the public at its retail premise located at Unit #9, 7955 Torbram Road, Brampton Ontario . (

h) There are two directors listed for 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture [ 68 ] The other two defendants in this proceeding, Kulwinder SINGH and Harminder Singh SANDHU, are the two directors of 9764895 Canada Inc. carrying on business as Maple Furniture. Kulwinder Singh has been the director of the corporate defendant since May 24, 2016, the date of incorporation of 9764895 Canada Inc. as indicated by the Ontario Corporation Profile Report contained in Exhibit #1. Both Kulwinder SINGH and Harminder Singh SANDHU are listed as the two directors of 9764895 Canada Inc. in the document entitled “Federal Corporation Information” contained in Exhibit #1. (

i) Maple Furniture’s email address and telephone number [ 69 ] The email address that is provided to customers of the store to contact the Maple Furniture store located at Unit #9, 7955 Torbram Road, Brampton Ontario , was set out on the invoice documents, at the top of the documents, provided by Maple Furniture to the two consumers, Goutham Nagolu and Dahlia White (Exhibits #2, #5 and #6). Both invoice documents also contained the logo for Maple Furniture and indicated that the email address for the business was “info@maplefurniture.ca”.

This is the email address that Goutham Nagolu and Dahlia White, who are the complainants in the present prosecution by the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services (now known as Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery), had used to send emails to Maple Furniture. Both Goutham Nagolu and Dahlia White had sent emails to the Maple Furniture email address, but both stated that Maple Furniture did not respond to th

[…]