2015 QCCQ 5151, 2015 QCCQ 5151

Koniarska c. Académie internationale des hautes études en soins esthétiques Compétence Beauté ltée 2015 QCCQ 5151 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL TOWN OF MONTRÉAL Civil Division No: 500-32-133384-125 DATE: June 15, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ RENATA KONIARSKA Plaintiff v.

L’ACADÉMIE INTERNATIONALE DES HAUTES ÉTUDES EN SOINS ESTHÉTIQUES COMPÉTENCE BEAUTÉ LTÉE and GINETTE LAFRANCE and MAUDE LAFRANCE-PATRY Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff claims from the Defendants $7,000, representing the reimbursement of the fees paid for the course followed in part with the Defendants, plus damages for loss of income. [ 2 ] By its cross-claim, the Defendants claim from the Plaintiff $6,928.81 representing the balance of the fees owed by the Plaintiff, plus $3,000 for the damages to its reputation and $3,000 for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.

THE FACTS [ 3 ] On May 4, 2011, the Plaintiff meets Maude Lafrance-Patry ( Maude ), a representative of Académie internationale des hautes études en soins esthétiques Compétence Beauté Ltée (the Académie ) as she is interested in taking the course offered by the Académie, in dermatology and photorajeunissement, to become a medical esthetician. [ 4 ] Maude would have assured the Plaintiff that the course given between June and September 2011, was bilingual, whereas the courses starting in September were given in English only. [ 5 ] At the first meeting, the Plaintiff signs the Contract [1] , choosing the course starting on June 20, 2011 to be completed on September 6, 2011.

The fees are $1,710, $250 for the inscription and $1,460 in tuition fees. [ 6 ] On the day of the registration, the Plaintiff paid $250, the second installment to be made on June 17, 2011 of $730, which the Plaintiff paid. [ 7 ] A manual and the relevant documentation were given to the Plaintiff [2] . [ 8 ] She attended the first course on June 20, 2011, Dermatology I .

She was to attend the second course, Dermatology II , on June 27, 2011, however, for medical reasons, she did not attend [3] . [ 9 ] On July 4, 2011, the Plaintiff returned to the Académie for the first course in photorajeunissement, given by Ginette Lafrance ( Ginette ). As the course was in French, Ginette said she would translate the course for the Plaintiff at the end.

However, neither at the end of the course or the next day did Ginette translate the course for her. [ 10 ] After July 5, 2011, the Plaintiff did not return to the Académie. [ 11 ] On August 10, 2011, the Plaintiff returned the material to the Académie, informing Maude that she was abandoning the course and asked to be refunded the tuition fees she had paid. [ 12 ] According to the Plaintiff, Maude agreed to this, but insisted Plaintiff write a letter explaining why she did not attend Dermatology II course.

The Plaintiff wrote the letter that same day [4] . [ 13 ] However, on August 29, 2011, the Académie answered Plaintiff’s letter and instead of confirming she would reimburse the tuition fees, she asked to receive $120, representing the balance owed for the courses followed [5] .

[ 14 ] On January 13, 2012, through her attorney, the Plaintiff sent a demand letter to the Académie requesting the reimbursement of the tuition fees paid of $980.

On March 26, 2012, the Académie did send a cheque to the Plaintiff for that amount, however, as the Plaintiff mentioned she had not received the cheque, a second cheque was returned to the Plaintiff, that she never cashed [6] . [ 15 ] Following this, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Office de la protection du consommateur [7] and instituted its action before the Court. [ 16 ] Maude and Ginette present another scenario of the events. [ 17 ] When the Plaintiff met Maude, she was clearly interested in the courses offered.

The Plaintiff was told that a new course was starting on June 20, 2011, however, Plaintiff clearly understood that the course would be in French. [ 18 ] In fact, the Contract [8] specifies that English courses are available. Also, when they met, both the Plaintiff and Maude spoke French and all the material given to the Plaintiff was written in French. [ 19 ] The Plaintiff did attend the first course on June 20, 2011 but the following week, the Plaintiff informed the Académie she would be late, but she did not attend. [ 20 ] The following Monday, July 4, 2011, the Plaintiff returned to the Académie.

She mentioned she was having problems with certain terms in French and Ginette realized she was having difficulties. Ginette offered to help, but quickly realized the Plaintiff was very frustrated with the process. [ 21 ] Although Maude and Ginette did offer to help Plaintiff, she decided not to return. [ 22 ] The Defendants received no communication from the Plaintiff between July 5 and August 10, 2011, when the Plaintiff returned the documentation and asked for a refund.

As the Plaintiff had used the material and did follow the course in part, the Académie did not immediately agree to refund the Plaintiff. [ 23 ] At that time, the Plaintiff became very rude, insulting the personnel and insisting, in front of other students, on obtaining a full refund. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Académie alleging it did not have a permit. [ 24 ] The Defendants tried to settle the matter and did return to the Plaintiff a full refund of $980, but the Plaintiff refused to cash the cheque.

THE ANALYSIS [ 25 ] The Plaintiff asks for the refund of the tuition fees paid of $980, plus $6,020 representing the income Plaintiff argues she lost because she was prevented from following the course and earning her degree. [ 26 ] With respect to Plaintiff’s claim for the tuition fees. The Court prefers the testimony presented by Maude and Ginette to that of the Plaintiff. [ 27 ] The Court has no hesitation in concluding that the Plaintiff knew the course was in French. [ 28 ] In the Contract [9] , it is a clearly indicated that English courses are available.

Moreover, all the material provided to the Plaintiff [10] is in French. [ 29 ] Once the Plaintiff started the course, she may have realized she was having difficulties following in French and the Court concludes that it is for this reason only that the Plaintiff decided to abandon the course. As she stated at the hearing, she is ambitious and she wanted to succeed. [ 30 ] During the hearing, the Defendants did not present any evidence to support its cross-claim.

Although the Académie had initially sent a full refund of the tuition fees to the Plaintiff, at the hearing the Académie stated this offer was no longer available. [ 31 ] However, the Académie did calculate portion of the tuition fees paid by the Plaintiff for the courses followed, which represents an amount of $503.

As the Plaintiff paid $980, the Académie is willing to reimburse the difference of $477, which offer the Court accepts. [ 32 ] The Plaintiff did not present any evidence that would justify her claim in damages. [ 33 ] In light of the offer made by the Académie, and considering that Plaintiff’s claim was exaggerated and that a full refund had been offered to her prior to her legal action, the Court will not grant any interest or costs. [ 34 ] As the Contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Académie, there is no lien de droit between the Plaintiff and Ginette Lafrance and Maude Lafrance-Patry.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s action; ACKNOWLEDGES the Offer by the Defendant, Académie internationale des hautes études en soins esthétiques Compétence Beauté Ltée; CONDEMNS the Defendant, Académie internationale des hautes études en soins esthétiques Compétence Beauté Ltée to pay to the

Plaintiff, Renata Koniarska, the sum of $477, in capital interest and costs; DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action against the Defendants, Ginette Lafrance and Maude Lafrance-Patry; DISMISSES the Defendant’s cross-claim; WITHOUT COST . __________________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: February 6, 2015