2018 QCCQ 3573, 2018 QCCQ 3573

Moskovitz c. Thermolec ltée 2018 QCCQ 3573 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-155990-171 DATE: April 24, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MOSHE MOSKOVITZ Plaintiff v.

THERMOLEC LTÉE Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT RENDERED ON THE BENCH ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff is claiming from Defendant the sum of $673.12 in reimbursement of the amounts paid by him for repairs resulting from the failure of a component of a dual energy system unit manufactured by said Defendant which was installed at his residence on February 22, 2012. [ 2 ] Plaintiff alleges that the component of the said unit was defective and that the cost of its replacement was covered by the conventional warranty offered by Defendant. [ 3 ] Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that as the result of the malfunction of the said component, a breaker of the electrical panel of his residence was damaged and had to be repaired. [ 4 ] Defendant contests Plaintiff’s claim alleging that the component of the unit that was replaced was not covered by the conventional warranty as the problem arose more than four years after the installation of the unit and that, at that time, the warranty covering the said component had lapsed since the length of this warranty was of two years. [ 5 ] CONSIDERING the testimony of Esther Rapaport, who represented Plaintiff at the hearing; [ 6 ] CONSIDERING the testimony of Daniel Menassa, representative of Defendant ; [ 7 ] CONSIDERING the documentary evidence adduced at trial ; [ 8 ] CONSIDERING that the problem affecting the component of the unit manufactured by Defendant arose after the expiration of the conventional warranty ; [ 9 ] CONSIDERING that Plaintiff has not established that the component of the said unit became defective in a premature manner ; [ 10 ] CONSIDERING that Plaintiff has not established that the breaker of the electrical panel of his residence was damaged by the defective component of the unit manufactured by Defendant ; [ 11 ] CONSIDERING that Plaintiff has not established that his claim is justified in fact and in law and for the reasons enunciated verbally at the hearing : THE COURT : DISMISSES Plaintiff’s demand, without costs. __________________________________ ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q.

Date of hearing: April 24, 2018