Topic: Transport Canada, BMW, Mercedes sued over Import Rules

[The Mighty Duck]

From the Globe & Mail.  Not sure if a lawsuit actually has any legal grounds, but it's nice to see this brought to Transport Canada's attention anyway.  I find BMW's treatment of importers particularly nasty...  be interesting to see how this plays out.


Ottawa sued over car import rules

GREG KEENAN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
February 28, 2008 at 1:48 AM EST

Two vehicle leasing companies have launched a class-action lawsuit on cross-border vehicle shopping with a new twist, alleging Transport Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency were participants in a conspiracy to keep vehicle prices high.

The two arms of the government have been named along with BMW Canada Inc., Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. and Mercedes-Benz USA LLC in a lawsuit that alleges actions they required of people or companies trying to import U.S. vehicles into Canada reduced competition and enabled prices of vehicles sold here to be 20 per cent to 35 per cent higher than similar U.S. models.

The auto makers, Transport Canada and the CBSA imposed restrictions on vehicle importers that created additional fees and charges, said a statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court.

Fournier Leasing Co. Ltd. and Canadian Auto Associates Ltd. are seeking damages that total in excess of $1-billion.

“These additional charges, fees procedures and restrictions prevent more competitively priced Mercedes vehicles from entering into the Canadian market, thereby enabling the Mercedes defendants to charge higher prices for new vehicles sold and leased by them in Canada,” the statement said.

For Mercedes and BMW, “these additional fees and charges are not payable under Canadian law,” the lawsuit said.

The charges have not been proven in court and none of the defendants in the lawsuit has filed a statement of defence.

JoAnne Caza, a spokeswoman for Mercedes-Benz Canada, would not comment. BMW Canada spokeswoman Stacy Morris said the auto maker was not aware that any such lawsuit has been filed.

The two luxury auto makers were among the first companies to offer cash incentives in Canada last fall when the Canadian dollar hit par against the U.S. currency. The rise of the loonie enabled Canadians to potentially save tens of thousands of dollars in the U.S. on such luxury vehicles as those sold by BMW and Mercedes Benz.

Luxury vehicles are believed to represent the bulk of the record 189,738 vehicles imported into Canada last year.

Transport Canada is named in the suit because of its role in certifying vehicles imported into Canada through the Registrar of Imported Vehicles program, which maintains a list of vehicles allowed to be imported and outlines the modifications necessary to make sure vehicles comply with Canadian regulations.

Among the requirements is one that importers provide proof to the CBSA that any repairs required under recalls have actually been made.

The auto makers forced importers to pay “artificially high fees and charges” for information about recalls, the lawsuit alleges.

BMW Canada's website says importers require a letter of admissibility from the company that costs $350. The fee for a letter saying the vehicle has been repaired under any recall orders is $500.

“There is a process. The law is quite clear that if you follow that process, you're entitled to import a vehicle into Canada,” said Brian Osler, one of the lawyers for the two leasing companies.

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080228.wrautos28/BNStory/Business/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080228.wrautos28

[tpl]

As for BMW its the sudden decision that even BMWs that were admissible for previous years  but now have been removed from the RIV.CA list is the worst.  The acid test for this would be to import a used BMW that, for example, was built before DRLs were mandated and see if BMW still insisted on charging to set them on.

This may be old news but I see on the latest RIV.CA document ( dated 21 feb 08) that 2008 corvettes are totally non-admissible... bumpers.   Surprising that such a low volume vehicle would have different bumper structures for Canada.... hmmmmmmm. I think someone at GM is guilty of stretching the truth here.

[gord_boyd]

I just put both the Guelph and Oakville co.'s (Cdn Auto Assoc.'s & Fournier Leasing) on my favourites.  I think this will cause MP's to ask more questions.
If I'm correct, the political leaning is to have a more level playing field for Consumers.

[Careener]

You are correct about the Corvette.. 2007 is ok with a $350 bumper mod.. 2008 not ok. GM is protecting its $25000 difference in MSRP. They also bully US dealers to not sell to Canadians AND don't honour warranties across the border.
This is free trade? This is a free market? Bravo.
These cases will take so long to make their way through the court system it won't make any impact.

[Cord]

Surprising that such a low volume vehicle would have different bumper structures for Canada.... hmmmmmmm. I think someone at GM is guilty of stretching the truth here.

It's my understanding that the bumpers are the same. It's Canada's requirements (8kph vs 5kph?) that are different from the U.S.'s.

[tpl]

Surprising that such a low volume vehicle would have different bumper structures for Canada.... hmmmmmmm. I think someone at GM is guilty of stretching the truth here.

It's my understanding that the bumpers are the same. It's Canada's requirements (8kph vs 5kph?) that are different from the U.S.'s.

So GM is saying that the identical bumpers  between US and Canadian retailed don't actually meet Canadian standards ?
Really. 

[initial_D]

Perhaps the Canadian car carries a bit more coolant, washer fluid, hence a bit heavier, so the same bumper is not as safe?

[Cord]

Surprising that such a low volume vehicle would have different bumper structures for Canada.... hmmmmmmm. I think someone at GM is guilty of stretching the truth here.

It's my understanding that the bumpers are the same. It's Canada's requirements (8kph vs 5kph?) that are different from the U.S.'s.

So GM is saying that the identical bumpers  between US and Canadian retailed don't actually meet Canadian standards ?
Really. 

  Ya that made no sense. The bumpers must be different.

[2latecrew]

Perhaps the Canadian car carries a bit more coolant, washer fluid, hence a bit heavier, so the same bumper is not as safe?

The thicker window seals on candian cars add extra weight too.

[tpl]

Surprising that such a low volume vehicle would have different bumper structures for Canada.... hmmmmmmm. I think someone at GM is guilty of stretching the truth here.

It's my understanding that the bumpers are the same. It's Canada's requirements (8kph vs 5kph?) that are different from the U.S.'s.

So GM is saying that the identical bumpers  between US and Canadian retailed don't actually meet Canadian standards ?
Really. 

  Ya that made no sense. The bumpers must be different.

Weird eh!    from Riv   today at 12:27  I wonder how many Corvettes they sell in Canada... I thought they only made about 70,000 a year for all markets.

"2008 Corvette models
Coupe, Convertible and
Z06. The vehicle cannot
be modified to meet
CMVSS 215 (bumpers).  "

never mind, Barrie will know.

[sailor723]

It's my understanding that CMVSS215 (bumpers) will be gone by this Summer.....to be replaced by a standard that is identical to US specs.

[No H2O]

It's Canada's requirements (8kph vs 5kph?) that are different from the U.S.'s.

And I wonder why Canada would come up with that requirement in the first place. I bet you if the US changed their spec to ours, Canada would increase it to 10 kph. Its their way of setting up a protectionist barrier without saying so. So typical up here!

[tpl]

There is a long TC article that explains all.   Canada did NOT change its standards, the USA did. They started the same and when the US changed to a lower standard... to save the motoring public money, TC were not allowed to use that reasoning to change the regulations.

 http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2007/20071013/html/notice-e.html   about 1/2 way down a very long page

[airbalancer]

It's Canada's requirements (8kph vs 5kph?) that are different from the U.S.'s.

And I wonder why Canada would come up with that requirement in the first place. I bet you if the US changed their spec to ours, Canada would increase it to 10 kph. Its their way of setting up a protectionist barrier without saying so. So typical up here!

If you do not like something , run for MP, or STFU
When are you leaving the country, the sooner the better

[tpl]

Gentlemen. Be nice.

I think the term  "STFU" should be banned from this forum.


AirB   HCRV is certainly partially correct, Canada can be very protectionist when it chooses.   Dairy products being a particular example... when  they had to get rid of quotas then they made tariffs of > 300%.  And indeed the safety thing is one of the favorite excuses... kiddy seats in cars for example.

[sailor723]

I think the US position (and the one that TC is looking to adopt) was that the higher impact standards are not cost effective in terms of increasing safety. I seem to remember the TC announcement making reference to a US study that found the higher impact standards did not really increase safety.

I think they were originally designed to prevent undetected damage from a low speed impact to steering/suspension parts that might result in a more serious accident at a later time.

BTW...I have to agree...."STFU" is objectionable and really has no place here

[No H2O]

If you do not like something , run for MP, or STFU
When are you leaving the country, the sooner the better

There is another typical attitude. Go FY! Try Air Head instead of Air Balancer for a user name.

I guess if I like Chinese food or Pizza, I should move to China or Italy.

And if you can't handle opinions, maybe you should move to a country that doesn't allow you to have any. The sooner, the better.

All we need is one world standard for cars, preferably one from Europe. Ever wonder why North America was so opposed to offset frontal crash tests (what usually happens in the real world)...because they couldn't pass a lot of them!!!

[No H2O]

I think the US position (and the one that TC is looking to adopt) was that the higher impact standards are not cost effective in terms of increasing safety.

And in 33 years of driving, never did I have to worry about it. Maybe if people actually drove their cars instead of yaking on a cell phone or applying make-up, they wouldn't run into someone parked at a light.

[Baron von Raschke]

If you do not like something , run for MP, or STFU
When are you leaving the country, the sooner the better

There is another typical attitude. Go FY! Try Air Head instead of Air Balancer for a user name.

I guess if I like Chinese food or Pizza, I should move to China or Italy.

And if you can't handle opinions, maybe you should move to a country that doesn't allow you to have any. The sooner, the better.

All we need is one world standard for cars, preferably one from Europe. Ever wonder why North America was so opposed to offset frontal crash tests (what usually happens in the real world)...because they couldn't pass a lot of them!!!

HCRV certainly does have a good point and I for one applaud him for voicing his opinion.  If you don't like his opinion, then challenge it and have a healthy debate.

PS

I think hcrv would get lots of votes if he ran on this platform.

[Arhidia]

What's the point in having a discussion forum if people can't express their opinions?

Btw, I would vote for hcrv.

It's my understanding that CMVSS215 (bumpers) will be gone by this Summer.....to be replaced by a standard that is identical to US specs.

I wonder how many vehicles would be accepted into Canada from the US on the riv list?