2020 QCCQ 278, 2020 QCCQ 278

Hassan c. Bilecan 2020 QCCQ 278 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF montreal Civil Division No: 500-32-157997-182 DATE: January 13, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONORABLE CAtherine Pilon, j.c.q. ______________________________________________________________________ KHALID M. HASSAN Plaintiff v.

OZGUR BILECAN Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT RENDERED ON THE BENCH ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On March 22, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased a 2006 automobile from the Defendant for $3,000. The vehicle had a mileage of approximately 140 000 km. [ 2 ] The Plaintiff argues that the vehicle was affected by hidden defects and claims $6,185 from the Defendant. This amount represents a $3,000 refund of the purchase price and the costs of the repairs on the vehicle.

The Plaintiff still uses the vehicle and to which he has added 50 000 km since the sale. [ 3 ] The context is as follows. [ 4 ] The parties signed an agreement on March 22, 2018 which provided that the purchase price of the vehicle would be refunded if an inspection performed after the sale discovered major or minor hidden defects. This agreement was valid 24 hours. [ 5 ] The Plaintiff took the vehicle for an inspection in the hours following the sale.

The mechanic found that the timing belt and the brakes needed to be changed for a total of $2,185. [ 6 ] However, this mechanic did not testify at trial, nor did the Plaintiff file any expert report in relation to the issues raised about the vehicle. [ 7 ] The Plaintiff advised the Defendant of these issues on March 22. The Defendant eventually agreed to take the vehicle back and refund the $3,000 purchase price. After various communications, the Defendant offered to meet the Plaintiff at SAAQ on March 23, the next day, at 4pm.

The Plaintiff did not come to this meeting. [ 8 ] The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s claim is unfounded for the following reasons. [ 9 ] First, the Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of proof that the work required on the vehicle was the result of a hidden defect. Given the age and mileage of the vehicle at the time of purchase, and without any expert evidence showing otherwise, the Court is of the view that the repairs required by the vehicle were caused by wear and tear.

Wear and tear does not constitute a hidden defect. [ 10 ] Second, the Defendant was agreeable to refund the purchase price and take back the vehicle within the time period covered by the agreement.

Although the Defendant attempted to meet his obligations pursuant to the agreement, it is rather the Plaintiff who failed to collaborate by not being present, without any valid reason, at the meeting at SAAQ. [ 11 ] The above suffices to dismiss the claim, but the Court adds that the Plaintiff is claiming for both the refund and the repairs, and that he could not be entitled to both. [ 12 ] Seeing the circumstances of the case, the Plaintiff Application will be dismissed without Court costs. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s Application; WITHOUT Court costs.

__________________________________ CATHERINE PILON, j.c.q. Date of hearing: January 13, 2020