2017 QCCQ 10863, 2017 QCCQ 10863

Fraticelli c. 7767595 Canada inc. (Dahlia Professionnal Piercing and Tattoo Studio) 2017 QCCQ 10863 COURT OF QUEBEC “ Small Claims Division “ CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL “ Civil Division “ No: 500-32-153076-163 DATE: September 19, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE VINCENZO PIAZZA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ORNELLA FRATICELLI Plaintiff v. 7767595 CANADA INC. (d.b.a.

DAHLIA PROFESSIONAL PIERCING AND TATTOO STUDIO) Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ms. Fraticelli claims $1,079.97 from 7767595 Canada Inc. (“Dahlia”), representing the laser-removal costs of a tattoo that she got at Dahlia’s studio [1] . [ 2 ] Ms. Fraticelli’s tattoo is not what she expected.

She finds it too large and does not like its colours, nor the shadowing around it, which she says was added by the tattoo artist on his own initiative. [ 3 ] Dahlia’s contestation of the claim is twofold: (1) a tattoo is a work of art, and its appreciation is highly subjective; (2) the tattoo artist who realized the piece, James Bouthilier, was an independent contractor, and not Dahlia’s employee. At the hearing, Dahlia advanced a further argument, based on a document entitled “Consent to Tattoo Procedure”, which was signed by Ms.

Fraticelli, and where she expressed her agreement with a series of statements, including: • I realize that variations in color and design may exist between any tattoo as selected by me and as ultimately applied to my body . I understand that if my skin color is dark, the colours will not appear as bright as they do on light skin. And in some cases when skin is considerably dark, that colours may not appear at all. • I acknowledge that a tattoo is a permanent change to my appearance and that no representations have been made to me as to the ability to later change or remove my tattoo .

To my knowledge, I do not have a physical, mental or medical impairment or disability which might affect my well being as a direct or indirect result of my decision to have a tattoo. [Integral reproduction; emphasis by the Court.] ANALYSIS [ 4 ] Dahlia’s argument regarding the fact that Mr. Bouthilier was not an employee is ill-founded. The arrangements Dahlia has with its artists are not known to the public. These arrangements and their legal implications cannot, as a result, be set up against Dahlia’s customers. [ 5 ] However, it appears that Ms.

Fraticelli accepted a certain level of risk when she decided to get a tattoo. She freely signed the consent form. [ 6 ] More fundamentally, Ms. Fraticelli recognizes that a stencil of the tattoo-to-be was applied on her skin before the actual tattooing began. Ms. Fraticelli did not protest about the size and design of this drawing at that point. [ 7 ] Ms.

Fraticelli has not demonstrated that her tattoo is materially different from this stencil, which reproduced the black-and- white drawing that she had chosen in Dahlia’s catalog. [ 8 ] Nothing in the evidence indicates that she was prevented from expressing her dissatisfaction with the design, size and colour of her tattoo before Mr. Bouthilier started to inject ink into her skin, thereby making it permanent. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the action; WITH COSTS of $100.00.

__________________________________ VINCENZO PIAZZA, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: September 19, 2017