2023 QCCQ 93, 2023 QCCQ 93

Murray c. Plaha 2023 QCCQ 93 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL "Civil Division" N° : 500-32-712759-200 DATE : January 9 th , 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ CANDICE LEE MURRAY Plaintiff vs.

KAJOL PLAHA Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff retained the services of the Defendant Kahol Plaha, who at the time was the owner of Mumbai Fashion126, a boutique selling traditional Indian wedding dresses called lehenga, to do a bridal lehenga. [ 2 ] The Plaintiff claims $15,000 representing the cost incurred for the wedding, namely the cost of the lehenga, the bridal accessories, the groom’s suit and accessories and for the maids of honor coordinating dresses. [ 3 ] In addition, the Plaintiff claims lost wages, damages for stress and inconvenience. [ 4 ] The Defendant contests the claim on the basis that once the lehenga was made the Plaintiff decided to collect the dress after the civil ceremony was held. [ 5 ] The Defendant requests by her Cross-Claim $4,000 for the damages following the comments made on Facebook, plus $6,000 for punitive damages following the Plaintiff’s abuse of rights.

THE CONTEXT [ 6 ] The Plaintiff had planned a civil wedding to be held at the Court House on September 21, 2019. [ 7 ] The official wedding ceremony was to be held in Mexico on October 21, 2019. [ 8 ] The Plaintiff commissioned the lehenga from the Defendant in June 2019, which was to be finished by July 14, 2019. [ 9 ] The Plaintiff was to wear the lehenga at the civil ceremony and wear it at night in Mexico following the official ceremony. [ 10 ] An invoice was prepared [1] , which is not dated, by which the Defendant undertakes to manufacture the dress for $1,600 in

accordance with the picture reproduced on the invoice and provided to the Court [2] .

A deposit of $800 was paid at the time to the Defendant. [ 11 ] On July 13, 2019, at the date scheduled for the lehenga to be finished, the Defendant sent a video showing the dress. [ 12 ] The Plaintiff provides several photographs of the dress [3] . [ 13 ] Clearly, the lehenga made by the Defendant does not correspond to the lehenga shown in the picture including with the invoice. [ 14 ] Realising this the Plaintiff requested that her $800 deposit be returned, however, the Plaintiff’s father-in-law, who was paying for the dress, convinced her to allow the Defendant to make a new lehenga. [ 15 ] In August 2019, the Defendant sent photos of the lehenga with the changes made to the dress [4] . [ 16 ] As soon as the Plaintiff received these additional photos, she knew that the Defendant was unable to make the dress she initially ordered. [ 17 ] However, notwithstanding the Plaintiff was unhappy with the lehenga, she nevertheless picked it up in October 2019 and paid the remaining $800. [ 18 ] The Plaintiff then decided to buy a new lehenga, less expensive, of a cost of $400, that she claims by her recourse. [ 19 ] She also claims the cost of the accessories she would had used with the lehenga, as well as the cost of the coordinated dresses for the maids of honor, the suit for the groom, shirt and accessories, the deposit lost for the bridal Mehndi that the Plaintiff could no longer afford, plus $500 in damages because she had to go for the makeup and hair for the wedding day, cutting down on the flower arrangements. [ 20 ] The Plaintiff also claims the lost wages, damages for the mental anguish, stress and financial burden. [ 21 ] The Defendant argues that it was the Plaintiff who decided to pick up the lehenga in October 2019 once the civil wedding had already taken place.

THE ANALYSIS [ 22 ] The Court concludes without hesitation that the lehenga the Defendant promised to make, shown in the photo [5] , is very different from the lehenga once finished [6] . [ 23 ] As also appears from the photos of the lehenga [7] it is not of the same quality as what initially promised by the Defendant. [ 24 ] For these reasons, the Plaintiff is justified in claiming the reimbursement of the amount paid to the Defendant. [ 25 ] However, the other damages claimed by the Plaintiff is not a direct consequence of the Defendant delivering a lehenga which did not correspond to what was initially promised.

[ 26 ] The Plaintiff stated that her in-laws were the one paying for the lehenga to be made by the Defendant. [ 27 ] Therefore, nothing prevented the Plaintiff from acquiring a dress, which could have been possibly more expensive than what she agreed to pay to the Defendant, but would correspond to the accessories that she bought, for the suit groom and accessories, the dresses for maids of honor, etc. [ 28 ] The Court would have granted this amount representing the difference between was what was paid to the Defendant and the cost of the lehenga in replacement, however, not the other damages claimed, as they are indirect. [ 29 ] As for the Defendant’s Cross-Claim, no evidence was provided that she lost revenues because of the comments made by the Plaintiff on Facebook. [ 30 ] There is no basis for a claim based on abuse of rights.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s recourse; CONDEMNS the Defendant Kajol Plaha to pay to the Plaintiff Candice Lee Murray the sum of $1,600 plus interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity provided at

Article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec as of August 21, 2020; WITH COSTS in the amount of $209 representing the judicial stamp of the Demand. DISMISSES the Defendant’s Cross-Claim. WITHOUT COSTS. ________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q.