2015 QCCQ 5573, 2015 QCCQ 5573

Azizi c. 9114-3057 Quebec inc. (Venus Auto) 2015 QCCQ 5573 COURT OF QUEBEC « Small Claims Division » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL « Civil Division »

No: 500-32-137235-133 DATE: May 28, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DOMINIQUE GIBBENS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SHIR MOHAMMAD AZIZI Plaintiff v. 9114-3057 QUEBEC INC., doing business under the name of VENUS AUTO Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Shir Mohammad Azizi claims $4,000 in damages from 9114-3057 Quebec inc., doing business under the name of Venus Auto (« Venus Auto »), who he claims was negligent in the replacement of the oil filter in his car, causing the engine to seize. [ 2 ] Venus Auto argues that its work could not possibly be at issue.

By way of cross-demand, it seeks damages of $3,200 for time lost in defending the claim. FACTUAL CONTEXT [ 3 ] On November 8, 2012, Venus Auto replaced the oil and oil filter in Mr. Azizi’s 2002 Toyota Camry at a cost of $35.95 plus applicable taxes. [1] [ 4 ] In the weeks that followed, Mr. Azizi made very little use of his car. While he was driving it on January 5, 2013, however, the engine suddenly stopped for no apparent reason. [ 5 ] The car was immediately towed to Venus Auto, but seeing that it was closed until January 13, 2013, Mr.

Azizi pushed it to a nearby garage, where he was advised, after an investigation at a cost of $103.48, [2] that there was no oil filter in the engine block and the oil had leaked from the engine, causing it to seize. Mr. Azizi found the missing oil filter in his driveway later the same day. [ 6 ] When Venus Auto reopened later in January 2013, it denied any liability, claiming that the filter could not have come loose so long after the repair and that it must have been tampered with or removed intentionally. Venus Auto told Mr.

Azizi that it could install a reconditioned engine, but at a cost of $2,600. [ 7 ] On January 30, 2013, Mr. Azizi sent Venus Auto a demand letter requesting payment within 10 days of $2,600 to replace the engine and $1,400 for other expenses. [3] QUESTIONS IN ISSUE [ 8 ] The case raises the following questions:

a) Is Venus Auto at fault for the oil filter falling off from Mr. Azizi’s car?

b) If so, is Mr. Azizi entitled to the amounts claimed?

c) Is Venus Auto entitled to its cross-demand? ANALYSIS

a) Is Venus Auto at fault for the oil filter falling off from Mr. Azizi’s car? [ 9 ] Mr. Azizi argues that the only possible cause of the oil filter falling off is that Venus Auto did not install it properly. According to him, this is obvious given that the filter fell off only weeks after Venus Auto’s involvement and that he used his car very little during this time. [ 10 ] Venus Auto does not dispute that the engine of Mr. Azizi’s car seized because the oil filter was removed, but it claims that it is impossible that the filter fell off as a result of its repair. It suggests that someone must have intentionally removed the oil filter or

tampered with it. [ 11 ] On a balance of probabilities, the Court finds that the most probable cause of the oil filter falling off is that it was not attached securely in place by Venus Auto at the time of the repairs. This can be inferred from the fact that the incident took place only a few weeks after Venus Auto changed the oil filter and that Mr. Azizi did not use his car much during this period. [ 12 ] Also, the explanation proposed by Venus Auto seems highly unlikely. Why would someone intentionally tamper with or remove the oil filter? [ 13 ] Venus Auto is therefore at fault and responsible for the oil filter falling off.

b) If so, is Mr. Azizi entitled to the amounts claimed? [ 14 ] Mr. Azizi is entitled to compensation for the direct and immediate consequences Venus Auto’s fault. [4] [ 15 ] It is not disputed that the engine of Mr. Azizi’s car must be replaced and that the cost of the replacement is 2,600$. Mr. Azizi is therefore entitled to this amount. [ 16 ] Mr. Azizi has also proven towing charges of $262.23, [5] inspection charges at Mod Urbain of $103.48, [6] and costs of $11.22 for the letter of demand, [7] for which he is entitled to compensation. [ 17 ] As for the inconvenience of being without a car for over a year, this constitutes an indirect damage for which Mr. Azizi cannot claim compensation.

c) Is Venus Auto entitled to its cross-demand? [ 18 ] Venus Auto has not proven any factual basis to support its cross-demand of $3,200 against Mr. Azizi. There are no allegations of fault that could give rise to Mr. Azizi’s liability towards Venus Auto.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the action; CONDEMNS Defendant 9114-3057 Québec Inc., doing business under the name of Venus Auto, to pay to Plaintiff Shir Mohammad Azizi the amount of $2,976,93, together with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided by law from February 11, 2013; WITH COSTS of $136.00 representing the judicial stamp of the Application. DISMISSES Defendant’s Cross-demand without costs. __________________________________ DOMINIQUE GIBBENS, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: May 12, 2015