Are You a Potential Candidate for a Class Action Against 407 ETR?

The group “Stop the 407 ETR’s Abuse of Power” is looking for potential candidates to bring a Class Action against 407 ETR. This will be the second Class Action the group assisted with against the company that operates the toll highway.


If you have an old bill, that was from a transponder account, for personal use, the group has asked that you contact them at


Please contact the company and get a copy of your original contract for the transponder. This will confirm you qualify. Tell the group a little bit about your situation and your phone number. Someone will get back to you.


While this is exciting news for all those that have waited many years for justice, the group wants people to know that going through the courts takes time. The first Class Action against this company, on behalf of Bankrupts, was launched in 2012 and the Supreme Court of Canada heard a case related to it just this past January, 2015. To date, many are still waiting for that Class Action to be registered.


The group says that while it takes time, it’s time well spent because they believe this action is necessary to protect battles consumers already fought and won in this country.


The group also wants people to know that the decision made by Justice Edwards, November 4th, 2014, 407 ETR v Ira Day, has been sent back by both the company and Mr. Day’s lawyers to Justice Edwards for a revision in that decision. This is why we have yet to see an appeal in that case. Once that decision is revised, they will let you know the implications.


2015 is looking good for all those waiting to see an end to this company’s abuse of power.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

36 Responses to “Are You a Potential Candidate for a Class Action Against 407 ETR?”

  1. TJ says:

    Why only transponders.
    That issue was already dealt with in court?
    They are not binding contracts if they involve individual consumers.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      Correct. 407 ETR breeched the Consumer Protection Act. Individuals can not sign away their rights to the 2 year Limitation period so to speak. A corporation can, but individuals are protected under the CPA. 407 had no business putting in their contracts that the individual was waiving their rights for 15 years.

  2. TJ says:

    But that was settled in the day case why a new class action for same thing?

    The only thing that still needs more action is to have the SOL start when it should and to challenge their right to have you in plate denial forever.

  3. TJ says:

    Could you please explain how this action would be beneficial.
    The Judge In Day has already affirmed that a consumer can not contract out making the SOL shorter or longer.

    Civil court deals with damages, losses of money.

    I can not think of any damages anyone who signed one of these illegal contracts suffered.

    Yes the court will reaffirm the judges ruling but at the end of the day there are no damages as a result.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      Good morning TJ. I really appreciate your concern. I am grateful that there are people like you out there concerned and are willing to speak up. I am relying on the lawyers to figure out all the legal aspects, but from what I understand, it will be a mechanism for people that paid to get their money back.

      Also, we will be stressing consumers rights. We want to address things not addressed in Day’s case, although Day’s case has been very helpful. This is the most emonomical way of moving forward to benefit the most people.

      When I have all the details, I can better answer your questions, but for now, this is the direction we are going with full confidence.

  4. TJ says:

    I respect the lawyers opinion, but I disagree with it.

    I am certain none of these people paid what they believed they owed because of this clause in the transponder agreement.

    The majority would not even have known it was there.

    These people who now claim it was this clause should have exercised some due diligence and they would have learned it was 2 yrs.

    Yes the contracts were wrong…. They will be revised.

    The judge will ask, did you owe tolls. If yes then you chose to pay your debt.
    If you disputed these tolls, why did you pay.

    They paid to get out of plate denial, which as crumy as it is, is still the law to this date.

    To say they only paid because of this 15 yr clause will not wash.

    If they believed the debt was real they paid, if they believed it was not a valid debt then they could have gone to court and the judge would have ruled in their favor re the sol.

    It will be very difficult to prove the 407 fraudulently put this clause in to entice people to pay.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      I disagree. There is a 2009 Toronto Star article whereby 407 ETR claimed to have permission to pursue debts for 15 years. Jim Bradely was the transportation minister at the time and confirmed that the company could do what they wanted, however, there is nothing that gives them that authority to do it.

      I will again bring you back to Jennifer Brown’s article… they know their practice is risky but are doing it anyway. I will also bring to your attention something Justice Rosalie Silberman said in the Supreme Court case this past January at minute mark 78 and 84. I believe you could apply what she said to any consumer protection law. 407 wants you to read something that applies to their rights, into whatever existing legislation there is, that isn’t there. That somehow trancendantly this particular debt to them remains dispite any consumer protection law.

      The 407 ETR absolutely have bullied people this way and you or anyone else will never convince me otherwise. They pay because both MTO and the company say that if you don’t you can’t drive a vehicle in your name and interest and fees continue to accumulate for 15 years. There is no independant process as is legislated and the Consumer is screwed. I know for a fact that the company agreed to follow all the laws in Ontario and Canada while operating their business when they signed the concessions agreement and just because Dalton McGuinty’s former employee became 407 ETR’s lobbyist in 2009 doesn’t mean the company gets away with what they have done to people.

      The 407 ETR has not provided me any proof of any tolls they claimed I made for the past 15 years. So I can truthfully say to the judge that I have no idea what if any tolls are legitimate claims.

  5. TJ says:

    I understand that and if you went to court they then would be required to prove the debt. You then can show all these tolls they claim if they do produce are statute barred 2 yrs from when they denied your plate yrs ago.
    But that is not what we are talking about. I totally agree with you but as far as the 15 yr clause there are no damages. No one has been forced to pay because of this clause. Only forced to pay because of plate denial. This is were the effort by lawyers should be. After all back in 2005 the courts ruled they can deny plates. That was not appealed.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      That’s where we disagree. I will agree that it’s not just the clause alone, but the clause is part of their strategy to circumvent consumer protection laws. It has caused damage. I have people in the group that have lost jobs and homes because of 407 ETR’s behavior. Not to mention the extra expenses I have incurred putting my vehicle in someone else’s name and trying to fight them all these years.

      Like I said, I will trust my lawyers to make the right case. I believe in them and they believe in me.

  6. TJ says:

    The 15 yrs in the Transponder agreement is legal if it is with a company. In the Day case they have been taken to task for asserting it also applies to private consumers.

    Everyone who has been forced to pay is because of plate denial only. As they have no other options as some do.

    This is the issue that must be challenged.
    First that they should not have that extra tool in their collection box, or at the very least that you Must be put in plate denial within 3 mths of the unpaid bill. Better still that the SOL should run as it is suppose to….from 20 days after the invoice.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      That will be part of the argument. Plate denial is definately the hammer that seals the deal, but the 15 years for consumers for personal use was part of their startegy. They have taken people to court, without them even realizing the company went to court and got judgments against them well after the 2 year limitation period.

      Not everyone paid. I didn’t pay. I am still in plate denial and have my vehicles in my kid’s name.

      We are thankful Mr. Day called them out on it. It’s about time, but now the rest of the story needs to be told in court.

  7. TJ says:

    The only reason I brought this up is because of what you were asking for.

    If you have an old bill, that was from a transponder account, for personal use, the group has asked that you contact them at

    Please contact the company and get a copy of your original contract for the transponder. This will confirm you qualify. Tell the group a little bit about your situation and your phone number. Someone will get back to you.

    The 15 yrs is now a mute point it has been dealt with.

    It is plate denial and not providing bills in a timely fashion that has not.

    As well as the Judges ludicrous move to give them extra time on a 2 yr SOL.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      I assume that the lawyers feel they have a stronger case this way.Like I said, there will be a focus on consumer protection now. There has to be a mechanism for people to deal with their bills. The Class Action should cover everyone because 407 ETR will not release people from Plate Denial and MTO will only release people if the company tells them to. They will more than likely appeal Day’s case all the way to the Supreme Court.

      It’s the same as we have done for the other Class Action on behalf of bankrupts. Mr. Moore’s case was settled at the last hour, so to speak, as soon as the company realized the Superintendent of Bankruptcy was appealing. The company fought the intervention tooth and nail, however, they were allowed to intervene and so were Class Action lawyers.

      I am not going to pretend I know all the in’s and out’s of why what strategy is the best, however, I will trust my legal team to take the path that leads to this issue benefiting most people in the best economical way possible.

  8. TJ says:

    Sadly we face 2 major problems.
    1…The courts ruled in the past that they have the right to plate denial as per the 407 act. That was not challenged on appeal.

    2…So far there is no appeal in the Day case re how the Judge has taken upon himself how to determine discovery of the debt.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      1) The lawyers know that. They were briefed and 2) We don’t really know what will happen with Day’s case yet. So it’s an unknown, but knowing how 407 ETR has relentlessly fought to keep the good thing they have going… I suspect they will do everything in their power to keep things the way they are and if they can appeal, they will.

  9. TJ says:

    At the end of the day it is not determined by lawyers. In the Day case both sides had HIGH Profile lawyers yet one of them was wrong regardless of his law degree. The real bad guy was the judge.

    His reasoning was wrong and he should have followed the case law that has been in place for years and years.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      I agree with you. That’s why I am confident that this will be the right direction. I don’t think Canada wants to go back to the debtors prison erra. Consumers rights have been woven into the fabric of our society and we expect things to be fair. What 407 ETR has been doing is extremely punitive and we have to fight them on this. It’s the only way to bring balance.

  10. TJ says:

    Yet it is an independent Judges who does not have a horse in the race who are making these stupid rulings both re SOL and Plate denial and even initially in the bankruptcy case.

    So who is the real enemy?????

    • Tammy Flores says:

      I understand your frustration. I believe the problem has been that not even the judges really unstand the beast we call 407 ETR. Because it’s highly political, people are afraid of it. I am not afraid of it because I understand exactly what happened and why we are here. Knowledge is power.

      I truly believe Justice Edwards was trying to be fair. 407 ETR has rights. However, what I am promoting now is that so do consumers and we should not lose sight of that. Think about it… there are people that will try to evade tolls. I have heard a few of those stories over the years, but it’s up to the company to act to protect their investment. It should not be on our back to carry this company. They made the decision to buy a highway without a gate. If they didn’t do their due diligence that’s their problem.

      These stories of large bills are 100% the company’s fault for not acting in their own best interests. They trusted their lobbyists too much to keep things obscured. Now the tables will turn and more onus will be put on the company to act and not cause the losses they will have. I hope their board of directors fire the CEO and hires someone that will make decisions that respects the law of the land they are operating in and puts in measures to protect their business.

  11. D Murph says:

    People please lets set the record straight!!!!
    I am going to make this as easy as possible to understand the following is from the government e-law might be too difficult for some? to follow for the answers.
    In Ontario- Ontario Limitations Act 2002 came into force Jan1/2004
    It sets two year term (section 4)This Limitation will be reinstated/reset where the debtor acknowledges the debt or makes a partial payment towards repayment of the debt.
    If the default occured prior to Jan1/2004 the creditor will continue to have 6years to pursue the claim.
    However, if the default occurred after Jan1/2004 then the 2 year rule applies.
    Federal – Section 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceeding Act sets 6 years as the Limit for debt.
    Federal law over rules Provicial Law!
    Whether you have or had a transponder is not the issue.
    This entire process is becomimg annoying from a legal viewpoint.
    If anyone is in plate denial for a “Bogus” fine listed by the 407etr with the MTO, that is more than the limitation period perscribes than that is illegal!!!
    if you phoned the 407 etr and made any arrangement to regain your plate stickers then you set yourself up for a rest of limitations, time period. If you are a victim of suppressed billing check your dates if you are able.
    Or if you are like some of us and have been disputing a bill from the beginning then, it should be Statute Barred completely erased from record, according to the Law.
    This is the year of 2015

  12. TJ says:

    Sir you are completely wrong.
    The SOL does not erase debt period. It simply governs the time you can be sued.
    Debt in Ontario is forever until you pay it off. SOL has nothing to do with how long a debt is valid or how long it can be reported to Equifax or transunion.
    Now I am not condoning how 407 operates just trying to give people the accurate info re SOL not someones mis interpretation of the act.
    Secondly you can not reset the sol in a phone call. It must be done in writing and signed by you, or a partial payment.
    Both these means are only valid if you do it within the 2 year limitation period. Any acknowledgment after the 2 years is over means nothing and will not reset the SOL.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      Yes. The law is the law, however, there is more than one way of modifying this company’s behaviour. We need to send the message that Canada is open for business but if you play in our sandbox … play nice because the other children don’t like bullies and will fight back 🙂 It doesn’t mean that their aggression hasn’t caused harm. They will have to pay for that and fix it or… and I am dreaming but… they could get kicked out of the sandbox. The simple playground analogy is best because what we really want is for them to play nice. We are Canadian but we aren’t push overs. We are just nice.

      • TJ says:

        I completely agree with you.
        I was just trying to set the record straight that what they are doing is not illegal as our government and our courts have given them these powers as distasteful as they are.
        When a judge leaves the door open for abuse of the SOL this is what we get.
        Most people do not understand what the SOL is and think its away to erase debt.

        Wheels of justice do turn slowly, however this latest ruling in November should have been appealed by now.
        I have been hearing for years it is being addressed….BS.

        • Tammy Flores says:

          I know. I appreciate it but please believe me that the case was sent back. We don’t know what the judge will rule however I just sent the lawyer what the company says on their invoices. I think that will be compelling. I think Justice Edwards will make the right judgment.

          • TJ says:

            Day’s lawyer has already publicly stated what the issue was that was being addressed by the judge. Simply to clarify what plate denial means….,period.
            Even if the judge now said they must put you in denial within 30 days of the bill that does not change the fact that they can put you in denial even if a SOL has run out.

            Makes no difference whether the bill is right or not, that is a separate issue you would have to take to court.
            In the mean time the plate denial remains.

          • Tammy Flores says:

            I look at this as a bridge. My end goal has always been to have Plate Denial regulated. That’s the goal. If they want to use that provision then use it for real toll evaders NOT on unsuspecting consumers caught in their administrative errors.

          • TJ says:

            This exact issue was dealt with by the courts in 2005…..that’s one longgg bridge.

          • Tammy Flores says:

            Where there is the WILL … there is always the way no matter how long that bridge is 🙂

  13. TJ says:

    Only in BC and Newfoundland is the debt extinguished after the SOL in those provinces have run out. They are cancelled….sadly that is not the law in the rest of Canada.

  14. Mal says:

    Is there any recourse for those of us without a transponder? I’m disputing a bill that dates back to 1997. The 407 has not provided me with the original bill nor proof that the car was ever on the road. The bill is now a whopping $7200 and I have been in plate denial for several years. How are they allowed to hold our plates hostage passed the SOL?

  15. TJ says:

    hey can deny them because the SOL has nothing to do with plate denial. Only how long they have to sue for the debt.

    Based on your info they can no longer sue you but they can keep you in plate denial forever as well as hound you with collection agencies forever.

    As far s smart lawyers….Day ha 2 smart lawyers, 407 had smart lawyers….turns out they both lost as they were wrong.

    Today we still have a mess with the SOL and plate denial.
    We will for years to come.

  16. TJ says:

    Sorry did not realise my keyboard was skipping.

    Darn crumb…lol

  17. P. Cross says:

    I sent you an email directly a couple of days ago.
    Perhaps you check your website more often?
    We are in serious trouble here, and need to know if there is anything we can do.
    Pat Cross
    Richmond Hill

  18. DJ says:

    Have been in plate denial since 2006, No Transponder and since then my life has been, for lack of a better term, &*#$%.

    I can’t get written proof of the initial date of plate denial from either the 407etr or the mto. I spent 80$ on reports only to have MTO state they only go back to 2009, not refundable.

    Trying to find a way out, anyone have advice on steps to take.


Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: BlueHost Coupon | Compare CD Rates, Online Brokers and Press Release