|
| This document is available in a PDF format. You'll need a copy of Adobe Acrobat or a PDF plug-in for your web browser to view the document. Adobe Acrobat is available at http://www.adobe.com |  Get Adobe Acrobat Reader |
 CAMVAP 2001 Annual Report |
David Adams; Lynne Arling; Ian Anderson; Bob Armstrong; Leonard Fortin (effective January 25, 2001); Scott James; Larry Johnson; Wm. (Bill) McArthur; Pierre Millette; James Savary; Richard Shaffner
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada
Canadian Automobile Dealers Association
Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
Consumers' Association of Canada
The Governments of:
British Columbia; Alberta; Saskatchewan; Manitoba; Ontario; Québec; New Brunswick; Nova Scotia; Prince Edward Island; Newfoundland and Labrador; Yukon Territory; Northwest Territories; Nunavut Territory
Stephen Moody (General Manager)
Arlene Weijers (Program Coordinator)
Michele Bolduc (Administrative Assistant)
Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan
235 Yorkland Boulevard, Suite 109
North York, Ontario M2J 4Y8
Website: http://www.camvap.ca
For consumer information call the provincial administrators at 1-800-207-0685
Phone: (416) 490-0615
Facsimile: (416) 490-1680
Email: info@camvap.ca
Letter from the Chair2001 was a hallmark year for CAMVAP.
When the program commenced operations in the Province of Québec effective January 25th, 2001, CAMVAP became a national program providing services to consumers and vehicle manufacturers from coast-to-coast.
When CAMVAP was established in 1993-1994, the manufacturers and, subsequently, all of the other participants who joined the program as it grew committed themselves to the goal of serving consumers throughout all of Canada. In doing so, they recognized that consumers should have access to a dispute resolution program that provides them with the opportunity to resolve issues in precisely the same manner, no matter where they live. That goal was finally achieved in 2001.
Making the program available in Québec was the product of hard work and genuine cooperation between the Québec Government's l'Office de la protection du consommateur; CAMVAP's Board of Directors and staff; the Consumers' Association of Canada; the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association; the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada; and the individual vehicle manufacturers. All of CAMVAP's key stakeholders played an important part in achieving this goal.
The program is better because of Québec's involvement. As part of the negotiations that took place in 2000, several amendments to the Agreement for Arbitration were made to improve and strengthen the program. Changes were made to the program's administration that further ensured the arbitrator's independence. At the same time, a process was put in place to deal with complaints made by consumers or manufacturers about how their case was handled by the arbitrator. These changes were implemented across Canada when a new Agreement for Arbitration became effective on the 1st of February 2001.
Significant ActivitiesThe single-most important achievement was the commencement of operations in Québec. Arbitrator training, the establishment of the provincial administrator for Québec and the communication strategy for the program were completed effectively, on time, and within the approved budget.
Important changes were made to the Agreement for Arbitration, all of which became effective on February 1, 2001. The changes were:
Communications
Communication links with stakeholders and organizations both inside outside the program continue to be strong. Program staff works diligently to ensure that the program is well and effectively communicated. Efforts are ongoing to ensure that the consumer is advised about CAMVAP when a significant problem with their vehicle arises; evidence from our annual survey indicates that the communication strategy continues to be effective.
Perhaps the most effective new initiative in the communications strategy has been the distribution of information about the program through the CAMVAP internet site. The number of successful requests for information jumped, more than ten-fold, from just under 62 thousand in 2000 to nearly 627 thousand in 2001. Successful requests for information averaged 1,718 per day and 15,313 distinctive internet hosts were served.
Corporate Governance
The Board of Directors met twice during 2001. In addition, the Executive Committee members met via e-mail to review several items and provide direction and comments on issues throughout the year.
Expenditures for 2001 were $1,426,990, within the approved budget. Much of the increase over the previous year's $1,113,293 can be attributed to the program's growth and to the inclusion of Québec. The manufacturers fund the administration of CAMVAP through a formula that reflects each company's Canadian market share. Case costs are based on the manufacturer's program experience.
Manufacturers prepay the cost of the program through payments that are due in January, March and July of each year. All manufacturer payments were received in full and on time. CAMVAP's budget represents a cost of about $1.00 for every new vehicle sold in Canada. While paid by the industry, the program cost is ultimately borne by the consumer through the purchase or lease of the manufacturers' products.
The program continues to focus on the continued delivery of a high quality program across Canada.
A critical and ongoing issue to be dealt with is the refund of Québec Sales Tax to consumers in the Province of Québec. In all jurisdictions, the consumer receives a pro-rata rebate on the GST or HST directly from the manufacturers and, for the provincial or territorial sales tax, a rebate directly from the Government concerned through application to the Government's revenue ministry. Consumers in Québec, however, although they receive the GST directly from the manufacturer, have no mechanism available to them for refund of the QST either by the manufacturer or by the Québec Government. CAMVAP is working to resolve this issue, and the Board of Directors has formed a small team to address it.
We expect to hold one arbitrator training session in Atlantic Canada. The focus will be on training bilingual arbitrators for New Brunswick along with locating and training additional arbitrators for Newfoundland and possibly Manitoba.
The Board of Directors has approved additional changes to the Agreement for Arbitration in 2002. Implementation and announcement of the changes is on target for October 2002.
CAMVAP is successful because of the willingness of all its stakeholders to work together to provide the program to all consumers in Canada. The Board of Directors, the program staff and the Provincial Administrators under contract to CAMVAP strive to provide a high quality service to each and every consumer and to the manufacturers. While independent with respect to their decision-making, the consumer survey results clearly demonstrate that the arbitrators also take the steps needed to provide a high quality service to the parties and to the program.
On behalf of the Board of Directors, I want to thank the arbitrators, the provincial administrators, and CAMVAP's General Manager and staff for their efforts during the past year. CAMVAP is successful because of the enthusiastic participation of all of you.
 |
| James Savary Chairman of the Board of Directors |
2001 Operating Statistics Cases HandlingCase results from the Province of Québec impact CAMVAP statistics for the first time in the year 2001. Across Canada, there were 1,641 claim forms mailed to consumers; 865 were completed and returned to the provincial administrators for a claim rate of 52.7%. The number of returns and the claim rate are new records for CAMVAP along with the overall total of 715 cases handled by the program in 2001. This represents an increase of 19.2% over the 600 cases in 2000.
The Provincial Administrators in Halifax, Québec City, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver (with a sub-office in Victoria) handled a total of 10,333 enquiries, an increase of 28.4% over 2000 and 50.1% over 1999. The majority of contacts with the program commence by telephone and are followed up by mail, fax or email depending on the services available to the consumer.
| 2001 | |
| Conciliated Cases | 82 |
| Arbitrated Cases | 533 |
| Consent Award Cases | 66 |
| Withdrawn or Ineligible Cases | 34 |
| Total | 715 |
Excluding withdrawn or ineligible cases, conciliated cases represent 12% of the cases handled. Consent cases represent 10%. These cases, where the parties settled either prior to the hearing or at the hearing, almost always achieve a result that is both a success and satisfactory to the consumer. The remaining 78% of the cases, where the arbitrator was required to decide the issues based on the evidence put forth by both the consumer and the manufacturer, are those where the consumer and manufacturer could not resolve the issues without a neutral third-party making a decision.
How Consumers First Learned About CAMVAPThe top three sources of awareness about CAMVAP continue to be industry related, with 44% of consumers initially learning about the program from industry sources. Government offices, Better Business Bureaus and automobile associations remain an important referral source with a combined total of 18%. Given that the bulk of consumers find out about the program from these various sources, CAMVAP's communications strategy is to target them, ensuring that the consumer finds out about the program when they have a need to do so. This strategy continues to work well.
In 18% of the cases, consumers learn about CAMVAP from a friend or relative. Of all consumers who were eligible to utilize CAMVAP's services, 80% would recommend the program to a friend who is having difficulty with their vehicle. Apart from being a very positive sign of consumer acceptance of the CAMVAP program, satisfied consumers clearly represent a significant source of information for other consumers.
Finally, some 7% of consumers learn about CAMVAP through their own research, mostly via the internet.
CAMVAP Conciliated, Arbitrated and Consent Cases Handled by Province and Territory
The 615 arbitration and consent award cases concluded in 2001 reflect a significant increase over the number concluded in 2000. Fully arbitrated cases are up 20.9% and conciliated cases are up marginally at .98%. Consent award cases are up 15.2%.
When the 24 withdrawn cases and 10 ineligible cases that were closed in 2001 are also considered, cases handled are up by 19.2% compared with those in 2000. Of this growth, 10.3% is attributed to Québec's first year in the program, with the remaining growth being distributed across the country.
Vehicle Types and Consumer Concerns
Passenger cars represent 45.2% of the arbitrated and consent award cases, up 39.8% over 2000. Light trucks represent 21%; minivans 17.4%; and sports utility vehicles 16.4%. There is almost always more than one issue with respect to the vehicle's operation, performance or appearance. Based on the 9 categories for which classifications are maintained, cars average of 1.8 complaints per vehicle, light trucks 1.8 complaints, minivans 1.6 complaints, and sports utility vehicles 2.1 complaints.
Issues to do with the engine (yellow) have traditionally been those with the highest number of complaints since the inception of the program. While the engine is first in all classes of vehicles, overall, transmission complaints rate second (green), complaints about the exterior body fit and finish are third (blue), and steering and suspension fourth (purple).
Representation at CAMVAP HearingsCAMVAP has been designed in such a manner that most consumers are able to handle their case without a lawyer. In the 533 fully arbitrated cases, only 6 consumers used counsel for their representation. Through changes to the program introduced in 2001, consumers can now also appoint an authorized person to represent them. Twenty consumers exercised this new provision in the Agreement for Arbitration.
Overall, 51.8% of consumers appeared at the hearing alone, a family member accompanied 32.1%, and 11.3% brought a witness to the hearing. Consumers can bring witnesses voluntarily or, if need be, by way of a subpoena. Provisions introduced in the 2001 amendments allow for subpoenas to be issued and for the arbitrator to order limited expenses towards the cost of obtaining the subpoena.
Manufacturers' representatives appeared alone in 60.4% of the cases. These representatives can be broadly categorized into two groups; head office staff assigned to handle CAMVAP cases (mostly in the Greater Toronto and Montreal areas) and, across Canada, either retired or current District Parts and Service Managers who handle the cases.
In 35.1% of cases, the manufacturer brought either a technician or another witness and, in 4.5% of the cases, a representative from either the servicing or selling dealer accompanied the manufacturer.
Summary of CAMVAP AwardsCAMVAP results can be divided into two main groupings
Conciliated and consent award cases are a positive result for the consumer. These case results, by their very nature, favour the consumer. If the results were not favourable to the consumer, then the matter would have continued on to arbitration. When the combined results for conciliated cases are included with the arbitrated and consent cases, 426 or 63% of the cases had an outcome that favoured the consumer.
Consent awards always favour the consumer by definition. In these cases, the consumer and manufacturer commenced an arbitration hearing; however, during the hearing they were able to resolve the issues and come to an agreement. The arbitrator, at the consumer and manufacturer's request, makes this agreement the award in the case.
Arbitrated cases are those where the parties have not been able to resolve the issues and therefore require a neutral 3rd party to listen to the evidence and make a decision. These are the toughest cases.
The results in the table are for the 533 arbitrated cases only; they do not include the 82 conciliated cases that settled before a hearing and the 66 consent award cases that settled at the hearing. In these fully arbitrated cases, which represent 78.3% of the cases handled, the awards favoured the consumer 49% of the time. In 2% of the cases, the arbitrators found during the case that he or she did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The manufacturer must complete repairs as ordered within 30 working days of receiving the award. Normally, the repairs are done within the first 10 days if the consumer's vehicle is available. There were 9 repair award cases out of a total of 151 that required re-opening because the consumer alleged that the repairs were not properly completed. In those cases, the arbitrator hears evidence from both of the parties to determine the appropriate steps to take and any additional award that should be made to resolve the issue.
CAMVAP monetary award include buybacks, reimbursement to consumers for repairs for which they have previously paid and a limited out-of-pocket allowance for items such as towing, diagnostic testing, taxis, accommodation and the issuance of subpoenas.
The total of all monetary awards in 2001 was $1,572,191.61.
| Number of Vehicle Buy-backs | 88 |
| Total Value of Buybacks Paid to Consumers | $1,505,499.86 |
| Average Value of Buy-backs | $17,107.95 |
| Number of Reimbursements to Consumers | 49 |
| Total Value of Reimbursements | $58,855.83 |
| Average Reimbursement per Claim | $1,201.14 |
| Number of Out of Pocket Awards Paid | $3,917.96 |
| Average Value of Out of Pocket Awards | $186.57 |
Leased vehicles are a significant and growing segment of the market place. In 2001, 138 of the cases handled by CAMVAP involved leased vehicles, of which 31, or 23%, were bought back by the manufacturer. This is the highest number ever to be processed by CAMVAP.
Leased vehicles represent a growing segment of the market, and therefore of CAMVAP cases. Some 23% of CAMVAP cases now involve leased vehicles.
| Number of leased Vehicles accessing CAMVAP | 138 |
| Percentage of Leased Vehicles | 23% |
Hearing LocationsThe table identifies the communities where CAMVAP hearings were held in 2001.
| Alberta | Manitoba | Brampton | Québec |
| Airdrie | Brandon | Brantford | Baie-Comeau |
| Barrhead | Dauphin | Brechin | Chicoutimi |
| Bonnyville | Dugald | Brockville | Drummondville |
| Camrose | East Selkirk | Burlington | Gaspé |
| Canmore | Southport | Cambridge | Gatineau |
| Clairmont | Stead | Chaput Hughes | Lachute |
| Didsbury | Stonewall | Chatham | Laval |
| Drayton Valley | The Pas | Cobourg | Lorrainville |
| Edmonton | Winnipeg | Collingwood | Montmagny |
| Edson | New Brunswick | Cornwall | Montréal |
| Fairview | Bathurst | Dryden | New Richmond |
| Falher | Fredericton | Erin | Portneuf |
| Fort Mc Murray | Grand Falls | Etobicoke | Québec |
| Grande Prairie | Marystown | Fort Erie | Repentigny |
| High Level | Miramichi | Fort Frances | Rivière-du-Loup |
| Hillcrest | Moncton | Garden River | Saint-Jérôme |
| Hinton | Noonan | Goderich | Vaudreuil-Dorion |
| Lacombe | Pointe-Verte | Guelph | Verdun |
| La Crete | Quispamsis | Hamilton | Saskatchewan |
| Lethbridge | Riverview | Hanover | Arborfield |
| Lloydminster | Saint Brazil | Hawkesbury | Beauval |
| Medicine Hat | Saint John | Kanata | Carlyle |
| Oyen | St. Jacques | Kapuskasing | Creighton |
| Red Deer | St. Stephen | Kincardine | Denare Beach |
| Rocky Mountain House | Sussex | Kingston | Eastend |
| Sherwood Park | Tracadie | Kitchenter | Elrose |
| Stettler | Tracadie Sheila | Leamington | Estevan |
| Vegreville | Woodstock | Lindsay | Fort Qu'Appelle |
| Vermilion | Newfoundland | London | La Ronge |
| Wetaskiwin | Bay Roberts | Midland | Lloydminster |
| British Columbia | Carbonear | Milton | Meadow Lake |
| Abbotsford | Clarenville | Mississagua | Melville |
| Arras | Corner Brook | Mount Brydges | Moose Jaw |
| Burnaby | Deer Lake | Nepean | Nokomis |
| Burns Lake | Gambo | Newmarket | Prince Albert |
| Campbell River | Gander | Niagara Falls | Regina |
| Chetwynd | Goose Bay | North Bay | Saskatoon |
| Chilliwack | Grand Falls | North York | Strasbourg |
| Cobble Hill | Grand Falls-Windsor | Oakville | Swift Current |
| Coquitlam | Harbour Main | Odessa | Tisdale |
| Cranbrook | Mt. Pearl | Orangeville | Weyburn |
| Delta | Port Aux Basques | Orillia | Whitewood |
| Duncan | Springdale | Oshawa | Yorkton |
| Fernie | St. John's | Ottawa | |
| Fort St. John | Nova Scotia | Owen Sound | |
| Gibsons | Amherst | Parry Sound | |
| Hudson's Hope | Antigonish | Pembroke | |
| Kamloops | Cape Breton | Perth | |
| Kelowna | Coldbrook | Peterborough | |
| Ladysmith | Dartmouth | Point Edward | |
| Langley | Digby | Port Dover | |
| Maple Ridge | Digby County | Port Hope | |
| Marysville | Halifax | Renfrew | |
| McBride | Head Chezzetcook | Richmond Hill | |
| Mission | Hubley | Sarnia | |
| Nanaimo | Kentville | Sault Ste. Marie | |
| Nelson | Lower Sackville | Smith Falls | |
| New Westminster | Meteghan River | St. Catharines | |
| North Vancouver | New Glasgow | St. Marys | |
| Parksville | New Waterford | St. Thomas | |
| Penticton | Port Hastings | Stayner | |
| Port Coquitlam | Porters Lake | Stratford | |
| Powell River | Stellarton | Sudbury | |
| Prince George | Sydney | Thunder Bay | |
| Queen Charlotte City | Sydney Mines | Tillsonberg | |
| Richmond | Yarmouth | Toronto | |
| Sidney | Nunavut | Trenton | |
| Smithers | Baker Lake | Troy | |
| Summerland | Iqaluit | Vineland Station | |
| Surrey | Ontario | Welland | |
| Terrace | Ajax | Weston | |
| Vancouver | Aurora | Willowdale | |
| Vernon | Barrie | Windsor | |
| Victoria | Belleville | Woodbridge | |
| Westbank | Bomanville | Woodstock | |
| Bowmanville | Prince Edward Island | ||
| Bracebridge | Charlottetown |
Consumers continue to rate the comfort of the hearing room highly; 83% of the consumers rate it as very comfortable or somewhat comfortable. The location selected for the hearing was found to be convenient by 85%. Hearings are conducted during the workweek; therefore consumers must take time from work or other activities. Even so, 80% of consumers rated the timing of the hearing as convenient.
Case Timing SummaryCases that involve one hearing with no technical inspection of the vehicle being ordered took, on average, 58.5 days to complete. The time frame jumps dramatically to 111 days when a technical inspection is ordered. Some cases require more than one hearing and, on occasion, more than one technical inspection. The arbitrator frequently orders second technical inspections if the consumer is alleging that repairs made to the vehicle under a repair order were not done properly or have not resolved the problems. Overall, technical inspections of the vehicle were done in 29.8% of all cases that went to arbitration.
| Cases | Average Days | |
| Arbitrated - No Technical Inspection | 323 | 58.5 |
| Arbitrated - Technical Inspection Ordered | 149 | 111 |
In 39 cases, the case was handled entirely by teleconference. In such cases, the consumer, manufacturer and arbitrator must agree to this procedure.
| Cases | Average Days | |
| Arbitrated - teleconference - no technical inspection | 30 | 51 |
| Arbitrated - teleconference - technical inspection | 9 | 91.5 |
The overall timing for arbitrated cases, considering all of the case handling variables, was 76.8 days from receipt of the consumer's application through to release of the arbitrator's written award. During that time, the program received the consumer's application, processed the manufacturer's response to the consumer's allegations, arranged a hearing location in or near the consumer's home community, confirmed the arbitrator, made all the arrangements required for the hearing to be held, processed the request for a technical inspection, arranged the exchange of comments by the consumer and the manufacturer following the inspection, received the award from the arbitrator, and, finally, forwarded it to the consumer and manufacturer.
| Cases | Average Days | |
| Conciliated before a Hearing Held | 82 | 33.9 |
Not included in the arbitrated case timing are the 83 conciliated cases that were concluded in 33.9 days on average. In these cases, the consumer and the manufacturer were able to resolve the issues between themselves without going to arbitration.
The consumer's perception of the speed of concluding the arbitration case is important; 66% of the consumers surveyed found that the case was completed either more quickly than expected or as fast as expected. This ratio has remained stable since it was first measured in 1995.
CAMVAP is keenly aware that this year's timing exceeds its standard of 70 days and is taking steps to reduce the timing, particularly on cases with technical inspections.
Rating the CAMVAP Provincial AdministratorsEach of CAMVAP's 7 Provincial Administrators are rated through the consumer survey.
On all of the dimensions measured, more than 80% of consumers rated the Provincial Administrators as excellent or very good, a new high for CAMVAP. These performance ratings are closely monitored and factor into the program's contractual discussions with each of the Provincial Administrators.
Rating CAMVAP's Consumer DocumentsConsumers who have been surveyed are also asked to rate CAMVAP's consumer documents. All of the information is written in a form that utilizes plain language while ensuring that the legal requirements of the program are well set out. More than 85% of consumers rated the consumer documents as very easy or quite easy to read.
Rating the ArbitratorsThere are about 120 independent arbitrators who handle CAMVAP cases on a fee for service basis. About 75% of the arbitrators are lawyers with the remainder coming from a number of professions and occupations. The overall rating of arbitrators is significantly affected by the result of the case. Generally, ratings will be more positive from those whose award was favourable than from those persons who view their award as unfavourable.
Overall, 2001 marked CAMVAP's highest rating since surveying began. CAMVAP was rated either excellent or very good by 75% of consumers, while only 11% rated it poor or very poor.
Ratings vary by the consumer's experience with the program. At 96%, the highest combined excellent and very good rating is given by consumers who settle before or at the arbitration. Of consumers who filed but did not proceed, 80% rated the program excellent or very good while 64% of consumers who went fully through the arbitration process gave ratings of excellent or very good.
Organizational Structure and Governance CAMVAP OrganizationCAMVAP is federally incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation. The 17 Associations and Governments that make up the CAMVAP organization are all members with voting rights at the Annual General Meeting.
The members of CAMVAP are the:
An 11 member Board of Directors governs CAMVAP. The Board of Directors establishes policy and monitors the financial, administrative and operational performance of the program. There are: two directors representing the AIAMC members; one director representing the CADA members; two directors representing the CVMA members; two directors representing the Consumers' Association of Canada and four Government directors.
The General Manager reports to the Board of Directors and is responsible for the day-to-day operational, administrative and financial management of the corporation. The General Manager is also Secretary to the Board of Directors and an officer of the corporation. The Program Coordinator and the Administrative Assistant provide support to the General Manager and to the Board of Directors.
CAMVAP FundingCAMVAP is fully paid for by the vehicle manufacturers through formulas that reflect each company's market share and past CAMVAP experience. Each manufacturer's payment for the program is calculated one year in advance. There is no connection between CAMVAP's funding and any individual case.
CAMVAP ArbitratorsThe arbitrators who provide service to CAMVAP come from many backgrounds and professions. The arbitrators are completely independent from the program. The manufacturers are not involved in their appointment to the CAMVAP roster, their training, or their case selection. The arbitrators are paid a flat fee plus expenses for each case that they conduct.
The Provincial Administrator selects three names from the roster of arbitrators who are available to hold a hearing in the consumer's home community. The three names, accompanied by a brief resume, are sent to the consumer who selects one of the arbitrators to conduct the hearing.
Arbitrations conducted under CAMVAP are governed by both the CAMVAP Agreement for Arbitration and the Arbitration Act in the Province or Territory where the arbitration is held.
Provincial AdministratorsThe public face of CAMVAP is the Provincial Administrators who deliver the program across Canada. The Provincial Administrators are responsible for receiving and responding to enquiries, processing claim forms and applications for arbitration, scheduling hearings and technical inspections and communicating the results of hearings to the parties. All enquiries to CAMVAP's toll-free services are handled by the Provincial Administrators. The Provincial Administrators are paid a fee to provide service to CAMVAP and an additional fee for each case handled.
| Province/Territory | Mailing Address | Consumer Numbers | Fax Number |
| Atlantic Canada and Nunavut | Better Business Bureau of Maritime Provinces Inc. 1888 Brunswick Street, Suite 601 Halifax NS B3J 3B8 |
1-800-207-0685 or Halifax area 902-422-2230 |
902-429-6457 |
| Québec | Le Centre d'arbitrage commercial national et international du Québec 295 boul. Charest est, bureau 090 Québec QC G1K 3G8 |
1-800-207-0685 or Québec City area 418-649-1330 |
418-649-0845 |
| Ontario | Horwath Orenstein Administrators Inc. 595 Bay Street, Suite 300 Toronto ON M5G 2C2 |
1-800-207-0685 or Toronto area 416-596-8824 |
416-596-7894 |
| Manitoba | Better Business Bureau of Manitoba Inc. 1030-B Empress Street Winnipeg MB R3G 3H4 |
1-800-207-0685 or Winnipeg area 204-989-9017 |
204-989-9016 |
| Saskatchewan | Better Business Bureau of Saskatchewan Inc. 2080 Broad Street, Suite 201 Regina SK S4P 1Y3 |
1-800-207-0685 or Regina area 306-352-7602 |
306-565-6236 |
| Alberta & the Northwest Territories | Alberta Arbitration & Mediation Services Inc. 10707-100 Avenue 4th Floor University of Lethbridge Building Edmonton AB T5J 3M1 |
1-800-207-0685 or Edmonton area 780-439-9359 |
780-433-9024 |
| British Columbia & The Yukon | Better Business Bureau of Mainland BC 788 Beatty Street, Suite 404 Vancouver BC V6B 2M1 |
1-800-207-0685 or Vancouver area 604-682-6280 |
604-681-1544 |
| Victoria area 250-386-6347 |
250-386-2367 |
Participating Manufacturers| Daewoo Auto Canada Inc. | Mazda Canada Inc. |
| DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc. | Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. |
| Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited | Nissan Canada Inc. |
| General Motors of Canada Limited | Porsche Cars Canada Ltd. |
| Honda Canada Inc. | Rolls-Royce Motor Cars (Canada) Ltd. |
| Hyundai Auto Canada | Subaru Canada Inc. |
| Jaguar Canada Inc. | Suzuki Canada Inc. |
| KIA Canada Inc. | Toyota Canada Inc. |
| Land Rover Group Canada Inc. | Volkswagen Canada Inc. |
| Volvo Cars Canada Ltd. |
Copyright 2012, Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan
Tous droits réservés MD 2011, Programme d'arbitrage pour les véhicules automobiles du Canada.
JavaScript DHTML Drop Down Menu By Milonic