Skip to main content

The Evolution of Moving Fraud Litigation – The Mitchell Decision

Moving scams are nothing new in Canada. The mover gives you a price, you agree, and allow a trusted moving company to come to your home and load all your worldly possessions onto a truck. Once the moving scammer has taken your possessions, the price for the “move” increases anywhere from 50% to 1000%. The customer, or as I prefer to call them, the victim, is usually faced with one option, pay now, or never see your belongings again. When you thought your move across the country would cost you $10,000.00 but, instead everything you have accumulated in your life is held hostage unless you pay a sum of $25,000.00. If you don’t have the means, you may feel helpless and not know where to turn. As we will see below, a self-represented litigant, Ms. Mitchell, took a moving company to court, and won all on her own. 

Holding a moving customer’s goods hostage in order to get them to pay more money is illegal. There are only a few exceptions to this, which I will not be covering in this blog. This is the first in a series of blog posts I will be writing to review some of the important case law that has helped lawyers and paralegals successfully seek justice against dishonest moving companies. 

Mitchell v 2156645 Ontario Inc
(cob Two Small Men With Big Hearts Moving Co), [2011] OJ No 4988

Ms. Mitchell, a self-represented litigant, commenced proceedings against a business operating as Two Small Men with Big Hearts Moving Co. (“Two Small Men”). Two Small Men provided Ms. Mitchell with a quote of $500.00 for her move and later increased it to $889.88 after taking possession of her items. Ms. Mitchell was away from her new home when the movers arrived to deliver her items so she asked the movers to unload her items onto her driveway. The problem arose when Ms. Mitchell arrived at her new home whilst the movers were still present. Her household goods were unloaded onto the driveway, but she was presented with a bill for $889.88. This represents a 56% increase in the initial quoted price. When Ms. Mitchell refused to pay the increased price, the movers began packing all of her belongings back onto the moving truck and drove off with her items. Later that evening, a representative of Two Small Men contacted Ms. Mitchell and told her that she now owed them $1,245.83. The next day, Ms. Mitchell’s received a fax from Two Small Men stating that the price for her move had increased to $1,901.78, and if she did not pay by the following day, the price would increase to $2,529.68. 

Two Small Men never returned Ms. Mitchell’s items, and so she took them to court and won.

In paragraph 31 of the decision, Deputy Justice Winnie writes: 

In law, the defendant’s refusal to complete the delivery was a breach of contract. In law, the defendant’s retention of the property was theft, and what is referred to as conversion and detinue in more traditional common law terms. 

In other parts of this decision, Deputy Justice Winnie describes the actions of Two Small Men to be “extortion”

Ms. Mitchell was awarded $21,810.00 for the value of her missing items, and $609.00 for living expenses incurred to rent furniture for her basic living needs. 

Two Small Men unsuccessfully appealed this decision
Mitchell v. 2156645 Ontario Inc., 2012 ONSC 6512 (CanLII)

Looking back at this 12-year-old decision, I notice that the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (CPA) was never invoked by Ms. Mitchell. Section 16 of the CPA states: 

Renegotiation of price

16 It is an unfair practice for a person to use his, her or its custody or control of a consumer’s goods to pressure the consumer into renegotiating the terms of a consumer transaction. 

Clearly, this section perfectly describes Ms. Mitchell’s situation with this moving company. Establishing a breach of section 16 of the CPA opens up a number of remedies under section 18 of the CPA. These remedies include the ability for a consumer to seek exemplary and punitive damages against a company that engages in an unfair practice. I speculate that if Ms. Mitchell asked for punitive damages under the CPA, it is likely she would have been successful. I have seen small claims court judges award punitive damages for breaches under section 16 of the CPA in recent decisions. 

If you or a loved one has been taken advantage of by a moving company, there is help. Our lawyers are experienced in taking moving companies to court and seeking justice. We know the law, we know your rights and you don’t have to compromise. If a moving company is holding your belongings hostage right now, call us as soon as possible, we can help. 

Do you want to know more,
or need a consultation?

Contact us today to book an appointment
with our firm.