2011 QCCQ 7027, 2011 QCCQ 7027

Monti c. Bell Mobility 2011 QCCQ 7027 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-116125-099 DATE: April 5, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ROSALBA MONTI, […], Beaconsfield (Quebec) […] Plaintiff v. BELL MOBILITY, 1 Alexander G. Bell, Tour A-7, Verdun (Quebec) H3E 3B3 BELL DISTRIBUTION INC., 1, Alexander G. Bell, Tour A-7, Verdun (Quebec) H3E 3B3 BELL KIOSK – Fairview Pte-Claire, 1 Alexander G.

Bell, Tour A-7, Verdun (Quebec) H3E 3B3 Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] GIVEN the evidence; [ 2 ] WHEREAS plaintiff bought 2 cell phones from defendant Bell Mobility, in November, 2007; [ 3 ] WHEREAS plaintiff also subscribed to a 3 year plan for both phones; [ 4 ] WHEREAS one of the phones began to malfunction, in June, 2008; [ 5 ] WHEREAS, from then on, plaintiff was unable to use the phone normally and for the purposes it was intended, as defendant failed to repair it; [ 6 ] WHEREAS, over a period of months, plaintiff was subjected to defendant's employees' incompetence and a complete lack of service; [ 7 ] WHEREAS plaintiff painstakingly set-out the chronology of events, in every minute detail, in exhibit P-2, and recounted same at trial; [ 8 ] WHEREAS plaintiff is a remarkably credible witness, and the Court shall rely on her testimony and evidence to conclude that all of the facts alleged in her application and exhibits P-1 and P-2 are true; [ 9 ] WHEREAS it appears, therefore, from the preponderance of evidence, that one of plaintiff's phones was defective; that plaintiff was unable to use it according to the terms of the contract (although the service was temporarily transferred to an old phone); that defendant failed to repair and return or replace the phone on a timely basis; that she paid for a service plan for each of the phones, which defendant later refused to acknowledge; that defendant's customer service was basically non-existent; [ 10 ] WHEREAS, as a direct and immediate consequence of defendant's numerous faults, omissions and incompetence, plaintiff suffered damages, which the Court, in its discretion, establishes at $2,500.00, which includes the reimbursement of $451.50 for the defective phone; $159.42 for the unacknowledged warranties; $383.78 for the cancellation fees; $250.00 for the loss of use and enjoyment of the phone; the remainder being for trouble and inconvenience, lost time and the stress suffered by plaintiff; [ 11 ] WHEREAS Bell Mobility did not respect its contractual obligations towards plaintiff; [ 12 ] WHEREAS Bell Mobility contravened s. 1458 and 1375 of the Civil Code of Quebec ; [ 13 ] GIVEN pars. 1 and 2 of the contestation regarding defendants "Bell Distribution Inc." and "Bell Kiosk";

WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: GRANTS plaintiff's application, in part; CONDEMNS Bell Mobility to pay plaintiff the sum of $2,500.00, plus legal interest and the additional indemnity provided for in s. 1619 of Civil Code of Quebec , from November 12, 2008, plus costs. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: March 22, 2011