2012 QCCQ 3051, 2012 QCCQ 3051

Carsley c. Woodland Toyota 2012 QCCQ 3051 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-109511-081 DATE: March 30, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ERIC CARSLEY Plaintiff v.

WOODLAND TOYOTA and 9115-4039 QUÉBEC INC., doing business under the name of Carrosseries gm verdun et Carrosseries gm gates and RÉAL RENAUD and NATHALIE TARDIF and GILLES LAFRANCE and ESTELLE PELLETIER , both owners of JG carrosserie Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the bodywork done to his automobile which had to be redone at a cost of $8,876.10, as appears from the Amended Application , which amount the Plaintiff reduces to $7,000 and relinquishes the difference, which he claims from the Defendants. [ 2 ] The Defendant Woodland Toyota ( Woodland ) contests Plaintiff's claim on the grounds that it did not do any work to the automobile. [ 3 ] 9115-4039 Québec inc. ( 9115 ) admits being responsible for the bodywork done to the automobile, but adds that the work was satisfactory.

The work was done according to the agreement concluded between the parties. [ 4 ] As for the other Defendants, they either failed to contest the action or contested on the grounds they were not personally liable towards the Plaintiff. T he revocation of judgment [ 5 ] It is clear from the explanations provided by the Plaintiff that he left the hearing, which was previously scheduled, believing the matter would be re-scheduled at another date. There was a clear misunderstanding between the presiding judge and the Plaintiff. For these reasons, the Court grants his Motion in revocation of judgment .

THE LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANTS

[ 6 ] The Court immediately addresses the claim against the many Defendants sued by the Plaintiff. [ 7 ] When the Plaintiff decided to have bodywork done to the automobile, he went to Woodland where the automobile had been purchased. Woodland informed him it no longer did bodywork. At the request of the Plaintiff, Woodland gave him the names of three body shops, including 9115. This is the extent of Woodland's involvement. As already mentioned at the hearing, the Court concludes that Woodland did not incur any liability by referring the Plaintiff to body shops.

It made no representations to the Plaintiff nor did it guarantee their workmanship. Plaintiff's claim against Woodland is unfounded. [ 8 ] Plaintiff's claim against Réal Renaud and Nathalie Tardif is also unfounded. Mr. Renaud is the president of 9115 with whom the Plaintiff contracted. No contract was concluded with Mr. Renaud personally, or with the latter's spouse, Nathalie Tardif. [ 9 ] As for Gilles Lafrance, he does business under the name of JG Carrosserie . 9115 subcontracted part of the work to Mr. Lafrance. The Plaintiff did not deal with Mr.

Lafrance directly and no contract was concluded between them. 9115 could have called Mr. Lafrance in warranty, but decided against it. There is no basis for the claim by the Plaintiff against Mr. Lafrance. As for Ms Pelletier, she is the spouse of Mr. Lafrance. Again, there is no lien de droit between the Plaintiff and Ms Pelletier. [ 10 ] Plaintiff's action will therefore be dismissed against Réal Renaud, Nathalie Tardif, Gilles Lafrance and Estelle Pelletier. THE FACTS [ 11 ] The Plaintiff inherited the Toyota Tercel from his deceased wife. The car was bought in 1985.

In 2005, the car was 20 years old and had more than 295 000 km. The Plaintiff says the car had a sentimental value. Notwithstanding it's age, Plaintiff wanted to have the body repaired. Mechanically, Plaintiff states the car was in perfect condition. [ 12 ] The Plaintiff selected 9115 to do the bodywork and met Mr. Renaud , on March 31, 2005. The Plaintiff says that Mr. Renaud, Mr. Marcuri and another employee of 9115 inspected the car for one hour. Mr. Renaud denies this. Mr.

Mercury inspected the car for no more than five minutes and told the Plaintiff he did not want to do the work as the car was to badly damaged. Mr. Renaud adds the car had no value; it was scrap metal. [ 13 ] The Plaintiff provides the Court with an extract of a Toyota Tercel brochure [1] , showing a front and rear view of the car, on which he indicates all the repairs to be done. The Court considers Mr.

Renaud's description to be more accurate and that of the Plaintiff. [ 14 ] The fact that the car was insured for a value of $6 200 [2] , does not prove the actual value of the car. [ 15 ] Plaintiff was insisting on the sentimental value of the car. Mr. Renaud agreed to do work, however, he was categoric, the bodywork would only be cosmetic. He quoted a price of $3,851 as appears from the invoice dated March 31, 2005 [3] . For this amount, Mr. Renaud says it was impossible to do a complete bodywork on the car, which would have cost three to four times this amount. Mr.

Renaud also advised the Plaintiff that he would work on the car in his spare time. Contrary to what the Plaintiff asserts, he did not promise delivery of the car for a specific date. [ 16 ] In the following weeks, the Plaintiff kept calling Mr. Renaud to inquire on the progress of the work. Mr. Renaud became so annoyed that he asked Mr. Lafrance to continue with the work. [ 17 ] Once Mr. Lafrance and 9115 completed the work, the car was returned to the Plaintiff. He made the following complaints: 1. He was ignored most of the time, his telephone calls and Express Post letters went unanswered; 2.

He was blackmailed by Mr. Lafrance; 3. There was reckless behaviour in the handling of his car. The behaviour, bordered on the criminal; 4. When the car was finally delivered, extensive mechanical damage had been caused to the car. [ 18 ] The testimony given by the Plaintiff is not credible. On the date of the hearing, the Plaintiff provided the Court with a twelve pages chronology [4] .

Although, the Plaintiff states he relied on Woodland who outsourced body work to the three body shops, and he could not find any garage to do the repairs, in his chronology he lists eight garages he visited between July 2003 and March 2005, who all quoted an amount to do the repairs . [ 19 ] The Plaintiff left the car with 9115 on March 31, 2005. One could assume that during the month of April, the Plaintiff had no complaint, since according to his testimony, no work was done by 9115 until at least the first week of may, when the car was transferred to Mr. Lafrance.

Notwithstanding this, as of April 1 st , the Plaintiff notes every telephone call made to 9115 with the precise hour at which the call was made. This clearly gives the impression to the Court that as of April 1 st , 2005, the Plaintiff was preparing his file for litigation. [ 20 ] As for his complaint that Mr. Lafrance blackmailed him, forcing the Plaintiff to give him additional money, this is not credible. At that time, no work had been started on the Toyota. If the Plaintiff had obtained estimates from nine others body shops, why leave the car in the possession of Mr. Lafrance?

Why agree to pay him more money? [ 21 ] The Plaintiff also complains that the car was left outside with the windshield removed, causing rain to pour into the car, resulting in mechanical problems, which resulted in repairs of approximately $1,200. These repairs were done by Mr. Frank d'Alessandro of Centre de mécanique L & F inc . [5] [ 22 ] The Plaintiff claims $709.15 out of a total invoiced amount of $1,420.28. However, in reviewing the invoice, Mr.

d'Allesandro admits that possibly the metallic pads and brake pivots could have been damaged because the vehicle was not used for several months. It represents repairs of $198. He admits that the rest of the repairs are unrelated to the event of this litigation and are due to the age of the vehicle. [ 23 ] As for the repairs done in October 20 th , 2005 [6] , the Plaintiff claims $578.43, out of a total invoiced amount of $1,512.36. Mr. d'Allesandro admits that the battery, the disks and brake pads had reached their useful age. [ 24 ] As for Mr.

Léo Gélinas, the expert retained by the Plaintiff, he inspected the vehicle in December 2011 and notes that part of the welding had disappeared. He could not however confirm if the welding was not there because of poor workmanship or due to the lapse of time. [ 25 ] Mr. Renaud is categoric. It is clear, when he met the Plaintiff, that only cosmetic bodywork would be done as the car was too damaged. He told the Plaintiff the car would be neat but would not be repaired. In fact, as appears from the various photographs [7] , the bodywork is well done and the car has a much newer appearance.

However, under the car, as well as inside the doors, trunk and hood, the body is rusted, as no repair was done to these parts. [ 26 ] The Court is convinced that the Plaintiff orchestrated his claim from day one. His testimony is not credible. The Court prefers the testimony of Mr. Renaud and Mr. Courcy of Woodland . FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiff's action against the Defendants WITH COSTS detailed as follows: - Mr. Renaud, Ms Tardif and 9115-4039 Québec inc.: $144.00 - Mr.

Lafrance and Ms Pelettier: $144.00 - Woodland Toyota: $189.00 DISMISSES Woodland Toyota's cross-claim WITHOUT COST . __________________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: February 20, 2012