2011 QCCQ 4235, 2011 QCCQ 4235

Ramdass c. Réalisations POP 2011 QCCQ 4235 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-121099-107 DATE: April 13, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SUZANNE HANDMAN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ JAIPERSAD RAMDASS […] Lasalle Québec […] Plaintiff v. LES RÉALISATIONS P.O.P. 7790, blvd.

Newman Lasalle Québec M8N 1X8 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Jaipersad Ramdass and his wife Feeda Abdool are claiming $2,200 from Defendant, Les Réalisations P.O.P., alleging they suffered damages because of Defendant's delay in installing their kitchen cabinets. They also seek compensation, claiming the installation did not respect the plans that had been discussed. The evidence: [ 2 ] Mr.

Ramdass and his wife contracted with Defendant to design, build and install kitchen cabinets for $4,8553.63. The installation was to begin on September 11, 2009 and end on September 14, 2008. [ 3 ] The work did not begin as scheduled. Defendant attributed this problem to the delay in its receipt of material. Defendant began the installation on September 18th and finished on September 21, 2008. [ 4 ] Mr. Ramdass had arranged to sublet his apartment.

Because of the delay in his kitchen installation, he contends the new tenant refused to sublet and he was then required to pay his landlord $1200 for another three (3) months of rent. [ 5 ] Defendant reduced its invoice by $300 because of the delay. For Mr. Ramdass, this was not adequate compensation. [ 6 ] Mr. Ramdass maintains the cabinets were supposed to extend to the patio door but ended approximately half a foot short. Mr. Ramdass is seeking the cost to redo this part of the installation. [ 7 ] Defendant submits that the visual representation that was given to Mr.

Ramdass provides an overall look of the kitchen design but the dimensions can vary after verification. The production plan, which is made after measurements are taken, indicates the exact layout, with the actual measurements. Analysis: [ 8 ] Mr. Ramdass reproaches Defendant for the delay in installation and claims that, as a result, a potential sub lessee no longer

wished to rent his premises. However, Mr. Ramdass provided no evidence with respect to the alleged sublet. [ 9 ] Defendant claimed the work did not begin on time because the material arrived late but produced no evidence in this regard. However, Defendant compensated Plaintiff for the delays by giving him $300. [ 10 ] Mr. Ramdass also contends the length of the cabinets is incorrect; the design Defendant had given him shows the counter extending to the patio doorframe.

Moreover, the designer assured him that the cabinets would reach the door. [ 11 ] Defendant refers to a disclaimer at the bottom of the design, which states that the design is an artistic representation of the general appearance and not an exact replica: « Ce dessin est une représentation artistique de l'apparence générale du plan. Il ne s'agit pas d'une réplique exacte. » [ 12 ] Defendant points to the production plans, which show a 36-inch counter with a space between the counter end and the door. However, there are no measurements as to the length of the space.

Defendant also submits that the plans prevail; the design simply provides an idea of what the installation will look like. [ 13 ] The contract stipulates that any plan annexed to the contract becomes an integral part of the agreement, if it is recognized and jointly signed by both the designer and the client. In this case, the production plan is not signed and in case of doubt, the contract is interpreted in favour of the consumer, which means that the plans do not form part of the contract. [ 14 ]

Article 41 of the Consumer Protection Act [1] states that goods or services provided must conform to the merchant's statements or advertising and their statements or advertisements are binding on them. [ 15 ]

Article 219 of the Act states that no merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may, by any means whatever, make false or misleading representations to a consumer. [ 16 ] In this instance, the coloured design produced by Defendant indicates that the counter will reach the door. The reality is considerably different, as shown by photographs taken by Mr. Ramdass after the job was completed. [ 17 ] The goods and services provided must correspond to Defendant's assurances and its design, both of which confirm Mr. Ramdass’ request that the counter reach the patio door.

The installation did not conform to Defendant’s design or representations and consequently, Defendant contravened the Consumer Protection Act . [ 18 ] Mr. Ramdass is seeking the cost to have the cabinets redone to extend to the patio door. The estimate comes to $935 plus taxes. He is entitled to this amount. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS , in part, the present action; CONDEMNS Defendant, Les Réalisations P.O.P., to pay Plaintiffs, Jaipersad Ramdass and Feeda Abdool, the sum of $935, plus tax, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity foreseen by

section 1619 of the Civil code of Quebec since December 8, 2009 and judicial fees of $99. __________________________________ SUZANNE HANDMAN, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: February 22, 2011