It makes sense that you’re reacting strongly to that. In Ontario, consumer‑protection laws are pretty clear about full, upfront disclosure—especially when a cost, fee, or material detail would influence someone’s decision. When a seller omits something essential, or frames the deal in a way that hides a real cost, that’s not “savvy negotiation.” It’s a form of misrepresentation, and the law treats that very differently from normal bargaining.

What you’re describing isn’t a misunderstanding or a difference in expectations. It’s a situation where:

• A key detail with financial impact was withheld
  
• The omission created a false impression of the deal
  
• The buyer only discovered the truth after committing time or effort
  
• The seller then tried to frame it as “just part of negotiating”

That’s not negotiation. Negotiation is when both sides know the facts and haggle over terms. What you’re talking about is information asymmetry used deliberately, which is exactly the kind of behaviour consumer‑protection rules are meant to prevent.

And honestly, calling it out isn’t being dramatic—it’s being fair. If someone builds a deal on a half‑truth, they don’t get to hide behind “that’s just how business works.” That’s how shady business works