> The article is unclear on whether the title was actually transferred before the disagreement over return of the tracker. Yes, the article is abundantly clear

> The article is unclear on whether the title was actually transferred before the disagreement over return of the tracker. Yes, the article is abundantly clear. You're getting downvoted because your position is counter to available facts, and your logic is faulty. He owned the car. They had no legal right to disable it. As the article says: Quebec's Consumer Protection Bureau said it is illegal to charge fees not included in a signed contract. The office also said a lender has to furnish a borrower with notice of 30 days before acting in such a way. Immobilizing a car could amount to a form of intimidation, which is also prohibited under consumer protection laws, they said. Your position is essentially that illegal behavior is fine, because, well, it's not "clear" that the behavior is illegal. Despite oodles of evidence that it is.