Household goods as hostages: Why enforcement must catch up to ‘rogue mover’ scams

Law360 Canada (February 5, 2026, 10:16 AM EST) --

Elysse Howard

Every week in the Greater Toronto Area, consumers seek help with a problem that is difficult to believe until it becomes familiar: a moving company offers an attractive quote, loads a household’s belongings into a truck and then demands thousands of dollars more before releasing the goods.

The consequences are immediate and destabilizing. Families may be left without beds, winter clothing, medication or essential documents. Many callers to law enforcement describe feeling isolated and embarrassed, and are often told that the matter is “civil,” leaving them uncertain about what practical options remain.

This is the reality of “rogue mover” scams, and the pattern is consistent. First, the mover provides a low estimate designed to secure the booking, often targeting individuals who are moving under financial or time pressure. Second, once the truck is loaded, the consumer is presented with documentation or revised terms — sometimes under significant pressure and without meaningful opportunity to review. Third, after taking possession of the goods, the mover demands an inflated price well beyond the original estimate, using the consumer’s property as leverage to compel payment.

Ontario law is clearer than many consumers realize. Where a consumer agreement contains an estimate, the supplier generally cannot charge more than 10 per cent above it. It is also an unfair practice to use custody or control of a consumer’s goods to pressure renegotiation. These protections are set out in the Consumer Protection Act, 2002. However, legal rights on paper do not always translate into timely, practical relief — particularly where the amount in dispute is relatively low, the consumer cannot afford a lawyer, and the urgency of retrieving household goods is acute.

This gap is where the Scocco Law Consumer Protection Clinic, run in tandem with Pro Bono Students Canada, seeks to assist. Under the supervision of the lawyers at Scocco Law, Osgoode Hall law students conduct client intake, help consumers organize key documents and draft correspondence to the moving company. The clinic’s objective is to help consumers understand their rights, communicate effectively with the business and, where possible, resolve disputes in a way that results in goods being released and improper fees reduced.

It is equally important to be candid about the clinic’s limitations. The clinic is small, operates with finite volunteer capacity and cannot accept every file or provide full-service representation for every dispute. Students do not provide legal advice; they provide legal information and administrative support under lawyer supervision, and all substantive steps require review and approval by the supervising lawyers. The clinic also cannot replace public enforcement. It cannot lay charges, compel police involvement or address broader regulatory gaps that allow bad actors to re-enter the market under new names.

Meaningful progress will require both prevention and accountability through coordinated action by law enforcement and policymakers. Consumers should be able to access practical guidance before booking a move: obtain written estimates and clear inventories; scrutinize pricing metrics that are difficult to verify; retain all emails, texts, photographs and receipts; avoid signing revised terms under pressure at the truck; and use payment methods that preserve dispute options. When household goods are withheld to compel payment, complaints should not be dismissed as routine “civil disputes.” Law enforcement should be supported to assess these reports promptly and seriously, and policymakers should examine whether existing oversight and enforcement tools are adequate to deter repeat bad actors.

If you believe you may be dealing with a rogue mover or another consumer scam, you can contact the clinic at consumerprotection.pbsc@gmail.com. While the clinic can help consumers take organized, informed next steps under lawyer supervision, its capacity is necessarily limited. A pro bono clinic can provide important support, but it cannot replace effective public enforcement that ensures consumers are not left without recourse simply to recover their own property.

Elysse Howard is a second-year JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and the project lead of the Scocco Law Consumer Protection Clinic, operated in partnership with Pro Bono Students Canada. Through the clinic, she supports consumers dealing with fraud and unfair practices under the supervision of licensed lawyers. She is particularly interested in consumer protection law and access-to-justice issues.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.