2016 QCCQ 3807, 2016 QCCQ 3807

Cooperstock c. 1465539 Ontario Inc. (Velcom) 2016 QCCQ 3807 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division N°: 500-32-143721-142 DATE: May 5, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE VINCENZO PIAZZA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ JEREMY COOPERSTOCK Plaintiff v. 1465539 ONTARIO INC. (VELCOM) and BELL CANADA INC.

Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Cooperstock claims damages from the defendants in the amount of $3,265.33, on account of the numerous failures of the Internet service at his home in 2014, 2015 and 2016. [ 2 ] The evidence establishes that from May 5, 2014 to April 1 st , 2016, the Internet service provided to Mr. Cooperstock by 1465539 Ontario Inc. (“Velcom”) failed on 16 occasions for a total duration of 34 days. [ 3 ] Mr.

Cooperstock and his family use this Internet service for all their home communication needs: Web browsing, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephone (including 911 service) and fax. [ 4 ] Mr. Cooperstock’s claim breaks down as follows: Wireless data plan paid to alternate supplier: $391.20 Analog telephone service charge during VoIP failures: $64.13 Damages due to loss of or unusable DSL service ($20/day * 34 days) $680.00 Damages for time spent by Mr.

Cooperstock sending emails to Velco and/or Bell regarding testing and problems and performing ping tests ($10/email & $20/ping test): $1,890.00 Testing at NID connection on May 6 and 8, 2014 and February 10, 2015: $150.00 Damage to house wiring: $90.00 TOTAL: $3,265.33 [ 5 ] Bell Canada Inc. pleads that it has committed no fault and that it has no contract or other form of lien de droit with Mr. Cooperstock. This is not contested. [ 6 ] Velcom’s plea reads as follows: Damages sought are indirect and cannot be claimed. Plaintiff’s claim is grossly exaggerated. Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages it may (sic).

Velcom committed no fault and is not liable towards plaintiff. Velcom notified plaintiff several times to find another provider if he was not satisfied. Plaintiff refuses to cancel his contract with Velcom. [ 7 ] Mr. Cooperstock had no obligation to accept Velcom’s suggestion to find another provider [1] . As long as the contract for services remains in force, Velcom is bound by the guarantees provided by sections 37 and 41 of the Consumer Protection Act [2] . 37. Goods forming the object of a contract must be fit for the purposes for which goods of that kind are ordinarily used. 41.

The goods or services provided must conform to the statements or advertisements regarding them made by the merchant or the manufacturer. The statements or advertisements are binding on that merchant or that manufacturer. [ 8 ] Mr. Cooperstock says that he relied on Velcom’s advertisement on the Internet [3] where it is stated that the company is committed to providing 100% satisfaction to every client and that it offers a cadre of competitively priced services without sacrificing speed, efficiency or reliability.

[ 9 ] At trial, Velcom’s representative testified that Mr. Cooperstock’s ping tests had not demonstrated that the service failures were due to Velcom itself. Velcom suggests that the failures could be caused by other Internet Service Providers (ISP) in the “chain”. [ 10 ] The Court understands from this testimony that in cyberspace, data is relayed from ISP to ISP, and travels this way from one point to another, hence the image used by the Court of a “chain”. Obviously, a chain can break at any one of its links. The Court understands that this is what Velcom means when it pleads that Mr.

Cooperstock’s damages are indirect. [ 11 ] It was not Mr. Cooperstock’s burden to demonstrate that Velcom was indeed the failing link. [ 12 ] Velcom’s argument may constitute grounds for an action in warranty against the defaulting ISP in the chain, but it is not a valid defence to Mr. Cooperstock’s action. [ 13 ] This said, Mr. Cooperstock’s claim, especially as regards his damages due to loss of or unusable DSL service and for time spent sending emails and performing ping tests, is somewhat enthusiastic.

Exercising its discretion, the Court considers that a global award in the amount of $1,200.00 constitutes sufficient compensation in the circumstances. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: CONDEMNS 1465539 Ontario Inc. to pay $1,200.00 to Jeremy Cooperstock, with interest at the legal rate, plus the additional indemnity provided by law, to accrue from August 11, 2014, and costs in the amount of $74.25; DISMISSES the action against Bell Canada Inc., with costs in the amount of $112.00. __________________________________ VINCENZO PIAZZA, j.c.q. Date of hearing: May 3 rd , 2016