2017 QCCQ 15338, 2017 QCCQ 15338

Valentine c. General Motors of Canada Company 2017 QCCQ 15338 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-154437-166 DATE: December 7, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ERIC DUFOUR, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ RICHARD VALENTINE Plaintiff vs.

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA COMPANY - and - CADILLAC CHEVROLET BUICK GMC DU WEST ISLAND LTEE Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff claims $2 356.34 from the Defendants, alleging latent defects in the paint of a used automobile he bought in 2011. [ 2 ] Defendant General Motors of Canada Company (GM) denies responsibility, alleging that the paint of some parts of the car was re-done after a crash.

Alternatively, GM says that the terms of the warranty (4 years or 80 000 kilometers covering the paint) have long since expired, for the car has more than 140 000 kilometers and was built in 2008. [ 3 ] Defendant Cadillac Chevrolet Buick GMC du West Island (West Island) argues that the claim should be directed to Le Centre de collision du West Island (Le Centre de collision), i.e. the company that repainted the car, more specifically the parts that are bubbling and blistering. [ 4 ] For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claim.

FACTS [ 5 ] On July 30, 2008, the vehicule built by GM was sold for the first time. Plaintiff bought it as a used car on November 2, 2011 [1] . [ 6 ] In December 2015, the car was involved in an accident [2] . Repainting of the hood and of the right door (passenger side) was necessary. The work was performed by Le Centre de collision on December 17, 2015, for $5 233.25 [3] . [ 7 ] Soon after, Plaintiff noticed that the paint was blistering and bubbling [4] .

He reached a GM’s representative on a service line at a call center, who apparently said to Plaintiff that the matter had to be dealt with by a local car dealer. That is why Plaintiff went to the premises of Defendant West Island. Indeed, that was coherent with the fact that the repairs to the car had been done at that business place. It is noteworthy to say that West Island and Le Centre de collision are owned by the same person and operate at the same address, 3650, Des Sources, Dollard-des-Ormeaux. [ 8 ] On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff met with West Island Services’s manager, Mr.

Duncan MacGregor, and together they examined the car. As it was out of warranty, Mr. MacGregor offered, «on a goodwill», to pay 50 % of the cost of the painting that was to be redone. Plaintiff did not agree. He took the position that the car was affected by a latent defect and that GM should uphold its legal warranty, and, alternatively, that West Island was responsible for poor quality of the painting. [ 9 ] The parties exchanged letters by which they tried to settle the case, but did not succeed [5] . Eventually, Mr.

MacGregor made an offer by which he finally offered to pay 25 % of the repainting (for $392) [6] . [ 10 ] On September 6, 2016, Plaintiff sent a Demand letter. [7] ANALYSIS [ 11 ] Plaintiff has no right of action against GM. [ 12 ] First, the repairs and repainting to the car by Le Centre de Collision had broken the link between Plaintiff and GM. The problematic paint isn’t GM’s work.

[ 13 ] Second, the warranty offered by GM covering the good quality of the paint is 4 years or 80 000 kilometers [8] . Here, the car was built in 2008 and had accumulated more than 100 000 kilometers [9] . The terms of the warranty have expired. [ 14 ] Finally, the legal warranty against latent defects alleged by Plaintiff is of no help in the present case. Plaintiff provided the Court with a series of documents on which he relies to establish the fault of GM and West Island [10] .

These documents are old bulletins or individual thoughts and experiences shared on the Web and are not relevant to the case at bar. [ 15 ] The Court refers to a learned judgment by Justice Brunelle: [31] À cet égard, le Tribunal observe qu’en matière de vente d’automobiles d’occasion, la « garantie de bon fonctionnement » maximale prévue par la loi n’excède jamais « six mois ou 10 000 kilomètres, selon le premier terme atteint » et ce, pour un véhicule de deux ans ou moins et qui n’a « pas parcouru plus de 40 000 kilomètres ». [32] Si ces dernières normes ne s’appliquent évidemment pas à la vente d’un véhicule neuf, elles peuvent tout de même servir de guide, dans une certaine mesure, sur ce que le législateur entend par une durabilité raisonnable. [33] La jurisprudence s’avère aussi éclairante en pareilles matières. [34] Ainsi, le droit de recours fondé sur l’article 38 L.p.c . a été nié au propriétaire d’un véhicule qui comptait « 5 ans d’usure » et dont l’odomètre affichait « 147,500 km ». [35] La Cour est parvenue à une même conclusion dans l’affaire Dupuis c.

Chrysler Canada inc. Le 11 septembre 2009, monsieur Dupuis avait acheté un véhicule Chrysler Grand Cherokee 2000 de son frère, lequel en était le propriétaire depuis 2003.

L’odomètre affichait 151 000 kilomètres au moment de l’achat. [36] Le 24 septembre 2009, monsieur Dupuis fait appliquer un traitement antirouille sur son véhicule. [37] En juillet 2010, il constate toutefois « que le longeron arrière gauche est cassé au niveau de la soudure et qu’il est perforé par la rouille ». [38] Puisque « le véhicule avait 11 ans et avait parcouru plus de 167 000 km » à ce moment, la demande est rejetée faute d’une preuve que le véhicule « a subi une détérioration prématurée par rapport à d’autres véhicules ». [39] Tout récemment, notre collègue, l’honorable juge Pierre Labbé, affirmait en obiter : « Que de la corrosion survienne à un véhicule automobile de 91 000 kilomètres plus ou moins après sept ans d’usage peut ne pas être étonnant ». [40] Enfin, dans une affaire encore plus récente, Lévesque c .

Joliette Volkswagen inc. , le propriétaire du véhicule - acquis à l’état neuf en 2006 - alléguait que le concessionnaire et le fabricant devaient être tenus responsables, aux termes des articles 37 et 38 L.p.c ., pour le problème de corrosion affectant sa voiture. [41] À cet égard, la Cour écrit : Au

chapitre de la durée, le Tribunal conclut qu’un véhicule âgé de neuf ou dix ans a servi à l’usage auquel il est normalement destiné. De plus, le véhicule a été utilisé normalement pendant une durée raisonnable , eu égard à son prix. Il n’y pas lieu de retenir la responsabilité des défendeurs sous la base de la

Loi sur la protection du consommateur . [11] [ 16 ] This applies to the present case. [ 17 ] The same goes for Defendant West Island. That company didn’t sell the car to Plaintiff. Even so, the same reasoning would apply, for the work, repairs and repainting were not performed by West Island. [ 18 ] That is not to say that Plaintiff has no right of action against no one. The fact is that the work was executed by Le Centre de collision, who happens to operate at the premises of Defendant West Island. Again, the two companies are owed by the same person.

It appears that Plaintiff’s right against Le Centre de collision is not yet prescribed, if ever that right is well-founded and established at time. For these reasons, the Court: [ 19 ] DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action, without the legal fees. __________________________________ ERIC DUFOUR, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: November 21, 2017