|
| 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 | 
Adobe Acrobat |
CAMVAP 2004 Annual Report |
David Adams; Bob Armstrong; Craig Brown; Michael Gagnon; Leonard Fortin; Scott James; Larry Johnson; Wm. (Bill) McArthur; Pierre Millette; James Savary (Chair); Craig Whalen
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; Quebec; 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 Spano (Administrative Assistant)
Lynette Mercado (Administrative Assistant)
Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan
235 Yorkland Boulevard, Suite 407
North York, Ontario M2J 4Y8
Website addresses: www.camvap.ca, www.pavac.ca
For Consumer Information call the CAMVAP Provincial Administrator at 1-800-207-0685.
For Program Administration information call (416) 490-0615 or facsimile (416) 490-1680.
Letter from the Chair 2004 - Building on SuccessCAMVAP provides the opportunity and venue for consumers and the manufacturers of their vehicles to resolve disputes through its being a neutral dispute resolution program. We have passed the 10 year milestone. Our Board of Directors continues to lead and steer the program and its development as we enter the second decade of operations. Our story is a successful one. Through the cooperative efforts of the board members representing the provincial and territorial governments; the Consumers' Association of Canada; the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada; the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, CAMVAP is well positioned for the future.
Highlights and ActivitiesThe Board continued implementation of the recommendations that were made in the 2003 Governance Review conducted by MCC Workplace Solutions Inc. Key elements of the changes were in the areas of communications within the program and with its many stakeholders. There was no impact on the day to day operations of the program.
The reduction in the number of cases was surprising and unexpected. CAMVAP was on target to have more cases than in 2003 up until August. From August onwards, the case numbers dropped dramatically as many of the manufacturers appeared to be working to settle issues with their customers before they were elevated to CAMVAP. While lessening the program's numbers, the outcome is in the consumer's interest, since the case is settled without the consumer having to go through arbitration.
CAMVAP has now handled more than 5,000 cases since its inception, with hearings held in all of the provinces and territories.
CommunicationsCommunications are important to CAMVAP. If CAMVAP is to be effective, it is essential that consumers know about us. All opportunities to promote the program are exploited. In major urban centres where the Better Business Bureau delivers our service, advertising is included in their member's guides. In most cases, these booklets are delivered to consumer's homes as newspaper inserts. We hope to develop new communications initiatives in 2005, partnering with other stakeholders where possible.
Our website is constantly maintained and kept up to date. Consumers can use the site to check if a vehicle has been bought back through CAMVAP anywhere in Canada. As well as providing information on the program, the site allows the consumer to begin the application process on line. It also includes a summary of all the CAMVAP cases for the previous year sorted by manufacturer and make and model.
Financial ReviewExpenditures for 2004 were approximately $1.5 million.
The program is fully funded by the automobile industry. The fees paid by the manufacturers are based on a budget developed within CAMVAP and approved by the CAMVAP Board of Directors. All fees are collected from the manufacturers in advance through payments made in January, March and July.
CAMVAP's budget is equivalent to about $1.00 for each new vehicle sold in Canada.
Focus and Objectives for 2005Work will continue on resolution of the Quebec Sales Tax issue. At present, Quebec consumers are unable to recover the QST paid for the vehicle when a buyback is ordered. We are working on a method by which the consumer will receive the refund on a prorated basis based on the buyback price as a percentage of the original price paid. At the end of 2004, we are still awaiting a ruling from the Ministry of Revenue.
Work on developing tools to improve consumer preparedness for their arbitration case will commence in 2005. It is important that consumers know and better understand both the scope and the limitations of CAMVAP.
We will continue to improve our lines of communications with all of our stakeholder groups; this is essential to ensure the continued smooth operation of the program.
On the staff side, we will undertake a review of the benefits paid to and on behalf of the staff, with any recommendations for change to be considered at the May meeting of the board of directors.
ConclusionCAMVAP is well on its way to a second decade of service to consumers and to the vehicle manufacturers. It is important to remember that we provide service to both sides of the dispute. Our effectiveness in processing the cases and the absolute neutrality of the program is one of the hallmarks of our success.
Once again I want to thank all the members and staff for their commitment to the program. We rely heavily on you for setting the program direction and for delivering the program across Canada.
 |
| James Savary Chair of the Board of Directors |
2004 Operating Statistics Case HandlingThe overall caseload in 2004 was 598 cases, a decrease of nearly 18% over the 2003 caseload. Provincial Administrators distributed 1360 claim forms to consumers, of which 676 or 49% were returned, a decrease of 3% over 2004.
CAMVAP Provincial Administrators are located in Halifax, Quebec City, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver (with a sub office in Victoria). Collectively, these offices handled 9,773 enquiries. This, like a number of the other operating statistics, is down substantially from the 10,211 inquiries handled in 2003 but well above the 7,805 inquiries handled in 2002.
| 2004 | |
| Conciliated Cases | 42 |
| Arbitrated Cases | 468 |
| Consent Award Cases | 48 |
| Withdrawn or Ineligible Cases | 40 |
| Total | 598 |
The 468 fully arbitrated cases represent about 78% of the program's case handling.
Cases Handled by Province and Territory
In 2004, 468 went to arbitration; 42 cases were conciliated before arbitration and 48 cases resulted in consent awards at the hearing stage. An additional 36 cases were withdrawn and 4 cases were found to be ineligible.
The 558 cases represent a decrease of 120 cases or 20% over 2003.
Consumer Awareness of CAMVAPCAMVAP uses the services of Synovate, an independent market research firm, to survey consumers who use the CAMVAP program. As in past years, consumers most commonly learn about CAMVAP from their owner's manuals or warranty books (19%), from dealers (18%), from the manufacturer (8%) or from friends or relatives (16%). Finding out about the program through the internet (11%) has been increasing on an annual basis.
CAMVAP closely monitors all the sources from which consumers might find out about the program. One of the key facets of the program's communications strategy is to target sources of information for consumers. This way, when the consumer seeks assistance, the organization, government consumer office, Better Business Bureau, etc will be able to give the consumer information on the program and provide the coordinates for access to our website and to our Canada-wide toll free telephone number.
CAMVAP continues to have links with many consumer-oriented websites, thereby providing easy access to the program. Consumers can link to CAMVAP from almost all of the government consumer information websites as well as those of several consumer advocacy groups.
Vehicle Types and Consumer Concerns
Engines continue to be the most common consumer complaint across all vehicle types arbitrated, followed by steering/suspension, transmissions and the exterior of the vehicle. In the chart, red represents the highest number of complaints; yellow the second highest; and blue the third highest.
Cars averaged 1.67 consumer concerns per complaint; light trucks, 1.51; mini-vans, 1.93 and sports utility vehicles, 1.78.
Representation at CAMVAP Hearings
In the 468 fully arbitrated cases, only 8 consumers used the services of a lawyer. Even so, this represents an increase of 5 cases over 2003.
In 54% of the arbitrated cases, consumers attended alone or with a family member. Only 16% of consumers specifically bring witnesses, although, in many of the cases in which a family member also attends, the additional person also testifies as a witness. Less than 1% of consumers used an authorized person to represent them at the hearing.
The manufacturer's representative appeared alone in 67% of the cases, bringing the dealer, a technician, or a witness in the remaining 33%. This result is essentially the same as in 2003.
Summary of CAMVAP Results
The results for both the consumer and the manufacturer are best measured when all of the fully arbitrated, consent award and conciliated cases are considered. Overall, the outcome favoured the consumer 60% of the time, although the consumer may not have always gotten the full remedy sought.
Considering only the 468 fully arbitrated cases, consumers prevailed in 263 or 56% of the time, compared to 52% in 2003. In the remaining 205 cases, no liability was found.
Looking at the 2004 fully arbitrated cases by type of remedy, 21% of the cases resulted in buybacks of the vehicle. By model year, there were only three 2005 model cases, one of which, or 33% of this number, was bought back. Of the 2004 model year vehicles, 19 out of 56, or 34%, were bought back. For the 2003 model year, 30 vehicles, or 24% of the 127 cases, were bought back. Finally, for 2002 model year vehicles, 32 vehicles making up 23% of the 142 cases, were ordered bought back.
The scope of a CAMVAP consent award may be within or outside the boundaries that are set out in the program's Agreement for Arbitration. When the parties reach an agreement at the arbitration, the arbitrator makes it the "award". This way the agreement is recorded, making it a fully enforceable award even if it is outside the range of remedies open to arbitrator had the case gone to arbitration.
2004 Summary Award Totals by ProvinceMonetary awards that can be made under the CAMVAP program include buybacks, with and without reductions for use, reimbursements for repairs and payment of out of pocket expenses.
In 2004, there were 109 buybacks for totalling $2,391,494 with an average vehicle value of $21,940. Leased vehicle buybacks are traditionally small in number; however, in addition to the funds returned to the consumer, the manufacturer must also pay the lease termination costs to the lessor of the vehicle.
The total value of monetary awards made in 2004 was $2,476,219. While down $98,191 from 2003, it is higher per case by nearly $1800.
| Number of Vehicle Buy-backs | 109 |
| Total Value of Buybacks Paid to Consumers | $2,391,494 |
| Average Value of Buybacks (Leased and Owned Vehicles) | $21,940 |
| Average Value of Buybacks (Owned Vehicles Only) | $29,356 |
| Number of Reimbursements to Consumers | 53 |
| Total Value of Reimbursements | $81,948.86 |
| Average Reimbursement Per Claim | $1,546.20 |
| Number of Out of Pocket Allowance Awards Paid | 12 |
| Total Value of Out of Pocket Allowance Paid | $2,776.15 |
| Average Value of Out of Pocket Allowance Awards | $231.35 |
Repair awards must be completed within 30 working days of the award being received by the consumer and manufacturer. Following completion of the repairs, the arbitrator remains seized of the matter for an additional 90 days. Should problems occur and the repairs not fix the problem, the arbitrator can order additional repairs or, if the vehicle is eligible, that it be bought back. If additional repairs are ordered, the 90 day continuation of the arbitrator's jurisdiction starts again.
Hearing LocationsOne of CAMVAP's key commitments is that the hearing will be as close as possible to the consumer's home community. Hearings are frequently held in hotel meeting rooms, or in the major centres, in the arbitrator's office and, in some of the more remote locations, town council chambers, meeting room facilities in local restaurants or at the community centre.
| Alberta | Maple Ridge | Sydney | Waterdown |
| Airdrie | McBride | Yarmouth | Welland |
| Athabasca | Mission | Northwest Territories | Windsor |
| Banff | Nanaimo | Yellowknife | Prince Edward Island |
| Bawlf | Nelson | Ontario | Charlottetown |
| Blackfalds | Nelson | Amherstburg | Summerside |
| Breton | North Vancouver | Aurora | Quebec |
| Calgary | Parksville | Barrie | Alma |
| Calmar | Penticton | Belleville | Baie-Comeau |
| Carvel | Port Alberi | Bracebridge | Blanc-Sablon |
| Cold Lake | Port Alberni | Brantford | Brossard |
| Didsbury | Port Coquitlam | Brockville | Charlemagne |
| Drayton Valley | Prince George | Burlington | Chomedy |
| Drumheller | Surrey | Cochrane | Cowansville |
| Edmonton | Vancouver | Cambridge | Granby |
| Elk Point | Vernon | Cornwall | Laval |
| Fort McMurray | Victoria | Elliot Lake | Maniwaki |
| Grande Prairie | Manitoba | Fort Erie | Matane |
| High Prairie | Brandon | Fort Frances | Montréal |
| Lamont | La Salle | Guelph | Pointe-Claire |
| Lethbridge | Portage la Prairie | Haliburton | Pointe-Lebel |
| Lloydminster | Starbuck | Hamilton | Québec |
| Medicine Hat | Winnipeg | Huntsville | Rivière du Loup |
| Red Deer | Thompson | Kingston | Rouyn/Noranda |
| Rocky Mountain House | New Brunswick | Kitchener | Sallaberry de Valleyfield |
| Sherwood Park | Bathurst | Lindsay | Sept-Iles |
| Smokey Lake | Dieppe | London | Sherbrooke |
| St. Albert | Escuminac | Midland | Sorel-Tracy |
| Valleyview | Florenceville | Mississauga | St-Agathe des Monts |
| Wetaskiwin | Miramichi | Newmarket | St-Hyacinthe |
| Wildwood | Moncton | Niagara Falls | Tadoussac |
| British Columbia | Saint John | North Bay | Thetford-Mines |
| Abbotsford | St-Louis | North York | Trois-Rivières |
| Black Creek | Tracadie-Sheila | Oakville | Varennes |
| Burnaby | Newfoundland | Orangeville | Saskatchewan |
| Chilliwack | Corner Brook | Orillia | Archerwill |
| Coquitlam | Gander | Oshawa | Churchbridge |
| Cranbrook | Harbour Grace | Ottawa | Kelvington |
| Delta | Stephenville | Peterborough | Moose Jaw |
| Duncan | St. John's | Petrolia | North Battleford |
| Fort Nelson | Nova Scotia | Richmond Hill | Prince Albert |
| Fort St. John | Hubbards | Sarnia | Regina |
| Fruitvale | Lawrencetown | Sault Ste. Marie | Saskatoon |
| Halfmoon Bay | Bridgetown | St. Thomas | Swift Current |
| Hornby Island | Coldbrook | Sudbury | Yorkton |
| Kamloops | Enfield | Thunder Bay | Yukon Territories |
| Kelowna | Halifax | Toronto | Watson Lake |
| Langley | Lower Sackville | Trenton | Dawson City |
| Malahat | Shelburne | Vineland | Whitehorse |
Consumers consistently rate the hearing location and the scheduling of the hearing highly. Overall, consumers rate the convenience and timing of the hearing highly at 89% and 85% respectively. Consumers who reside in urban centres rate the location higher than rural based consumers who rate both the location and time at 75%.
Case TimingCases took an average of 71.3 days from the time the application was received by the Provincial Administrator until the arbitrator's award was forwarded to the consumer and manufacturer. This is up by 5.7 days from 2003 and it is also 1.3 days over CAMVAP's target of 70 days. Much of the timing delay can be attributed to the time required to complete technical inspections. There were 20 complicated cases where more than one hearing or multiple technical inspections were required. The impact of the complicated cases on overall average time is substantial.
When the cases with multiple closures are excluded, 96.2% of the cases closed within the overall average of 71.3 days. In fact, 284, or more than 52% of the cases, were completed within an average of just over 52 days.
In the just slightly over two months time that the process takes for completion, CAMVAP will have received the consumer's application; reviewed it and forwarded to the manufacturer; received the manufacturer's case information and forwarded it to the consumer; set up a hearing in the consumer's community and arranged for the arbitrator selected by the consumer to hear the case. A hearing will have been held; a technical inspection may have been conducted with additional time required for the parties to comment on the inspection report and, after all of the evidence and information has been received by the arbitrator, the award is written and then forwarded to the consumer and manufacturer.
| Cases | Average Days | |
| All arbitrated and Consent Award Cases | 516 | 71.34 |
| All cases that closed with one hearing only | 473 | 60.72 |
The 294 basic cases, those with one hearing only and no technical inspection being required, closed in an average of 52.2 days.
| Cases | Average Days | |
| Arbitrated - No Technical Inspection | 294 | 55.5 |
| Arbitrated - Technical Inspection | 105 | 102.8 |
There were 48 cases fully handled by teleconference. Teleconferences are held only when both the manufacturer and the consumer agree that the case may be handled by telephone. Often teleconference hearings are used where the consumer resides in a remote community.
| Cases | Average Days | |
| Teleconference - No Technical Inspection | 31 | 48.9 |
| Teleconference - Technical Inspection | 18 | 123.2 |
Some cases settle before a hearing is held. The consumer and the manufacturer come to a settlement that is considered by both to be fair. These conciliated settlements, much like consent awards, may or may not be within the scope of the CAMVAP Agreement for Arbitration. As these settlements happen before the case is started, CAMVAP does not know the terms of the settlement and therefore cannot track the nature of the agreement between the consumer and the manufacturer.
| Cases | Average Days | |
| Conciliated before a Hearing is Held | 42 | 38.9 |
Rating the CAMVAP Provincial AdministratorsCAMVAP's Provincial Administrators are rated through the consumer survey on the basis of seven distinct customer service attributes. This information has been tracked annually and forms part of the program's overall assessment of these service providers.
The administrator's ratings by consumers has consistently improved over the nine years surveyed. All but the Ontario and the Quebec administrators have been service providers to the program since 1994. Quebec came on stream in 2001 and in 2202 CAMVAP chose a new provider in Ontario.
Rating the ArbitratorThe over 120 arbitrators who provide services to CAMVAP come from a variety of occupations and professions. About 75% of the arbitrators are lawyers with the remaining 25% coming from professions and occupations such as former judges, university professors, consulting engineers, senior administration positions, land claims administrators and management consultants.
The consumer rates the arbitrator on six different assessment factors. In most cases, the consumer's overall assessment of the arbitrator is heavily influenced by the case outcome. Consumers who received all or most of what they wanted through the arbitration process rate the arbitrators more favourably than those consumers who were not successful in their arbitration.
Overall Program RatingThe consumer's overall rating of the program is one of the measurements most closely watched by the CAMVAP Board of Directors. Overall, excellent and very good measurements are at 74%, up 2% from 2003. On the other end of the spectrum, the poor and very poor ratings are at 15%. These ratings have held consistently between 12% and 16% since 2000.
As noted earlier, most, but not all, consumers rate the arbitrators in a manner that varies directly with their success in the arbitration. The same holds true for their rating of the program in general. Consumers who settle before the hearing have consistently given CAMVAP high ratings. Consumers who file but do not complete the process and those who are qualified but decide not to proceed also rate the program highly. Most of those consumers will have found that the enquiry to the program and its follow up have often led to a satisfactory resolution of the dispute between them and the manufacturer.
Consumer Preparedness for CAMVAP CasesQuestions about consumer preparedness for CAMVAP cases were added to the survey in 2002. The results for 2004 are very consistent with 2002 and 2003 results: 94% of consumers felt themselves very prepared for the arbitrator's role and power, and 90% of consumers were similarly prepared for the limits on the arbitrator's power as set out in the Agreement for Arbitration.
Organizational Structure and GovernanceCAMVAP is a federally incorporated not-for-profit corporation. The 15 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 CAMVAP. The eleven members consist of 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 representing the provincial and territorial governments.
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.
When a case is to go to arbitration, 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 then selects one of the arbitrators to conduct the hearing.
The CAMVAP Agreement for Arbitration along with the Arbitration Act and the applicable consumer protection legislation in the Province or Territory where the Arbitration was held govern CAMVAP cases. In Quebec, the Civil Code governs arbitrations.
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 | Better Business Bureau of Maritime Provinces Inc. 1888 Brunswick Street, Suite 805 Halifax NS B3J 3B7 |
1-800-207-0685 or Halifax area 902-422-2230 |
902-429-6457 |
| Québec | Soreconi Inc. 215 Rue Caron, Québec (Québec) G1K 5V6 |
418-649-9292 Toll free: 1-800-207-0685 |
418-649-0845 |
| Ontario | T.O. Corporate Service 55 St. Clair Avenue West Suite 255 Toronto ON M4V 2Y7 |
1-800-207-0685 or Toronto area 416-921-2686 |
416-967-6320 |
| 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 Suite 605 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 ManufacturersDaimlerChrysler Canada Inc.
Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited
General Motors of Canada Limited
Honda Canada Inc.
Hyundai Auto Canada
Jaguar Canada
KIA Canada Inc.
Land Rover Group Canada Inc.
Mazda Canada Inc.
Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc.
Nissan Canada Inc.
Porsche Cars Canada Ltd.
Subaru Canada, Inc.
Suzuki Canada Inc.
Toyota Canada Inc.
Volkswagen Canada Inc.
Volvo Cars of Canada Ltd.
Copyright 2010, Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan
Tous droits réservés MD 2010, Programme d'arbitrage pour les véhicules automobiles du Canada.
JavaScript DHTML Drop Down Menu By Milonic