Alsouadi v. Top Point Auto Service, 2023 NSSM 99

Small Claims Court OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Alsouadi v. Top Point Auto Service , 2023 NSSM 99 Date: 20231002 Docket: 524160 Registry: Halifax Between: Abdulmenan Alsouadi Claimant v. Top Point Auto Service and Sales Defendant Adjudicator: Eric K. Slone Heard: October 2, 2023 Counsel: Claimant – self-represented Defendant – self-represented By the Court: [ 1 ] This matter came before the Court on September 29, 2023, via zoom. [ 2 ] The Claimant gave evidence, assisted by an Arabic/English translator from the YMCA, Lina Dola.

The Defendant’s owner Salam Ibrahim gave evidence on behalf of his company. [ 3 ] The Claimant seeks damages of $1,700.00 for what I would characterize as a warranty claim. [ 4 ] The Claimant says that he bought a 2010 Dodge Journey (through O’Regan’s in Dartmouth) in about June 2022 and had it inspected at the Defendant’s shop. He paid $40.00 for this service. He also claims that the Defendant performed work on the brakes and sway bars at a cost of $1,700.00, and that there was a one-year warranty on this work. [ 5 ] The Claimant says that he paid cash for this work and did not get a receipt nor an invoice.

The only document that he produced that points in this direction is a quote from the Defendant which indicates that such work would be warrantied for one year. There are no dollar values, and nothing to indicate that work was actually done. Mr. Ibrahim says that his company gives out quotes freely but has no record of doing this work. [ 6 ] The Claimant says that in August 2023 he needed to have work done on the brakes at a cost of $411.70 and believes that the Defendant ought to have honoured its warranty.

He also appears to fault the Defendant for the fact that the vehicle has been displaying a check-engine warning and has a noise emanating from somewhere behind the dash, possibly associated with the air conditioning. [ 7 ] Mr. Ibrahim for the Defendant denies that he worked on this vehicle in 2022. He says that he did the MVI for which he was paid $40.00. He says that if he had done work, there would have been an invoice, and he has no record of one.

He also says that his inspection did not include the engine or cooling system, but only the safety components. [ 8 ] The Claimant appears to genuinely believe that he has been “ripped off” but, unfortunately for him, he has not presented sufficient evidence to convince me that the Defendant owes him anything.

[ 9 ] The evidence is thin and confusing. I appreciate that the Claimant’s English is only rudimentary, but he was able to express himself well with the assistance of an interpreter. [ 10 ] Several hours after the hearing had concluded, the Claimant sent a copy of a document which is ambiguous in that it might just have been a quote, or perhaps it was an invoice. The Defendant rightly protested that the time for submission of evidence was before, not after the hearing, and he submits that I should not admit it.

I prefer to admit it, but I give it little weight as the Defendant has had no opportunity to respond to it, and it would be improper to re-open the hearing after it was otherwise concluded. [ 11 ] As for the evidence presented, I would have liked to see an invoice or some other document reflecting the purchase of the vehicle. I would have liked to see the MVI certificate. [ 12 ] All that I see is an invoice for brake work done by another company more than one year after this alleged warranty was said to have been given.

There is no evidence that the work done at that time was as a result of any faulty work done by the Defendant. [ 13 ] Even if, and this is a big “if”, this work should have been under warranty, there is no evidence that it has cost the Claimant any more than $411.70, and not the $1,700.00 he claims. Order [ 14 ] Accordingly, for the reasons above, the claim must be dismissed. Eric K. Slone, Small Claims Court Adjudicator