2016 QCCQ 10427, 2016 QCCQ 10427

Romain c. Lepage Électro Ménager 2016 QCCQ 10427 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU TOWN OF GATINEAU Civil Division No: 550-32-022694-159 DATE: September 21, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SERGE LAURIN ______________________________________________________________________ Claude Romain Applicant v. Lepage Électro Ménager Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Mr.

Romain is suing Lepage Electro Menager (Lepage) for improper repairs on his stove. [ 2 ] Lepage did not contest the claim and is not present at the hearing. The Court proceeded by default against Lepage. QUESTION IN DISPUTE [ 3 ] The Court has to decide if Lepage properly repaired Mr. Romain's stove. If that conclusion is reached, the Court has to determine the amount due in damages. THE FACTS [ 4 ] Mr. Romain contacted Lepage to have his stove repaired. Initially, Lepage replaced the stove's computer for the amount of $ 522,45.

Following that repair, the same troubles occurred and Lepage decided to change the digital controls in the amount of $ 323,65. [ 5 ] Even after these two repairs, the problems were still occurring on Mr. Romain's stove. [ 6 ] Lepage finally repaired the stove's probe for $ 58,64 which solved the issues. [ 7 ] Mr. Romain sent a main letter to Lepage who refused to refund the repairs previously made on the stove which did not correct the malfunctions. ANALYSIS [ 8 ] The parties are bound by a service contract in accordance with

section 2100 of the Civil code of Québec [1] witch states : 2100. The contractor and the provider of services are bound to act in the best interests of their client, with prudence and diligence. Depending on the nature of the work to be carried out or the service to be supplied, they are also bound to act in accordance with usage and good practice and, where applicable, to ensure that the work carried out or service supplied is in conformity with the contract.

Where they are bound to an obligation of result, they may not be relieved from their liability except by proving superior force. [ 9 ] The Court concludes that Mr. Romain demonstrated that Lepage did not accurately do the repairs. Twice they serviced the

household appliance for no reason, charged for parts that did not resolve the issues and refused to reimburse Mr. Romain. FOR THOSE GROUNDS, THE COURT: [ 10 ] GRANTS the claim; [ 11 ] CONDEMNS the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $ 846,10 with interest at the legal rate and additional indemnity stipulated in

section 1619 of the Civil code of Québec starting June 11, 2015. [ 12 ] With judicial fees. __________________________________ SERGE LAURIN Date of hearing: September 19, 2016