Overview: YTK Management and John Bachynski, who operated an automotive wholesale business, were investigated by an AMVIC inspector under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) for potential breaches. The inspector requested business records, but YTK only partially complied. The Director issued an order for full production of records, which YTK appealed, arguing that the CPA did not authorize AMVIC to compel record production during an investigation.
Key Issues:
- Whether the Board erred in its interpretation of s 132(2) of the CPA.
- Whether the Board erred in refusing to qualify YTK's proposed expert witness.
Court's Analysis:
- The court determined that the Act clearly distinguished between inspections and investigations. Investigations required reasonable grounds and permission to enter premises, and businesses had no obligation to cooperate without a court order.
- The Board conflated inspections and investigations, incorrectly holding that s 132(2) allowed AMVIC to compel document production during an investigation.
- The Board did not err in refusing to qualify Ralph Stotschek as an expert, as his testimony was unnecessary to resolve the legal issues of the appeal.
Conclusion:
- The appeal was allowed, and the Director’s Order was quashed.
- Parties could submit written submissions on costs if they could not agree.
- The document does not specify a total monetary award, costs, or damages granted or ordered.
