2010 QCCQ 10854, 2010 QCCQ 10854

Dawes c. Ding's Inc. 2010 QCCQ 10854 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD TOWN OF COWANSVILLE Civil Division No: 455-32-002635-083 DATE: November 25 th 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SERGE CHAMPOUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ANGELINA DAWES Plaintiff v. DING'S INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff is claiming 1 503,55$ from the defendant who is operating a garage. She is saying that the defendant did not fix her truck properly and that the amount charged was higher then agreed. THE RELEVANT FACTS [ 2 ] Angelina Dawes buys a 1995 Chevrolet pick-up. Since the seller is in the United States of America, she has to submit the truck to inspection to plate it. [ 3 ] The inspection is performed in Sherbrooke on November 2 nd 2007.

Several defects are identified and on November 14 th 2007, Angelina Dawes takes the truck to Ding's Garage for repair. It is then "winter tire season" for the defendant, and Angelina Dawes is informed that the repairs will take a certain time. [ 4 ] Finally, on December 10 th 2007, the truck is ready and she takes possession of it. The invoice is for 1 730.88$, including taxes. She pays that amount. [ 5 ] It should be noted that the truck is not licenced and cannot be taken for the test drive. The plaintiff Dawes knows the defendant's officers, Arlene and William Mc Kellar.

She has done business with them in the past, and she trusts them. [ 6 ] So, she takes possession of the truck and drives away. She quickly notices a sound coming from the engine or exhaust system. [ 7 ] The day after, she is back at the Mc Kellar's garage. The proof differs from the plaintiff to the defendant as to what is said. According to the plaintiff Dawes, she is told that the catalytic converter is blocked or damaged, but that it is not "a big deal'. It should be fixed, but if she chooses to have it done elsewhere, it is perfectly fine.

Maybe she could get it done cheaper there. [ 8 ] According to William Mc Kellar, he tells her that the catalytic converter is blocked and that it should be taken care of immediately, that the engine cannot breath efficiently and that there is a risk of overheating for the engine. He says that Angelina Dawes tells him she would make arrangements to have it done elsewhere cheaper. [ 9 ] On the 3 rd of January 2008, Angelina Dawes brings her truck back to Ding's garage.

During the three weeks she was driving the truck, it stalled on occasion, did not run properly, burned oil, etc. [ 10 ] William Mc Kellar than notices that the truck went about 600 miles since he had it in his garage. The converter was not changed, thus causing overheating to the engine.

After some rough discussion, a new converter is installed provided by the plaintiff, who brought it herself, the oil is changed and a few other repairs are made, all free of charge. [ 11 ] Angelina Dawes takes possession of her truck on January 11 th 2008 and immediately takes it to a Chevrolet dealer who makes other adjustments and repairs. [ 12 ] She now claims 730,88$ for repairs that she considers were billed over the amount estimated, 390,30$ for the catalytic converter she paid and 382,37$ for repairs done at the Chevrolet dealer.

DISCUSSION [ 13 ] The contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is governed by the Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q.,

chapter P-40.1 ("C.P.A."). That act provides the following regarding estimates that should be prepared before any repairs, and the consequence thereof. Written estimate required. 168. Before carrying out any repairs, the merchant must give the consumer a written estimate. The merchant cannot be released from this obligation without a waiver written in its entirety by and signed by the consumer. Exception. No estimate is required where the repairs are to be made free of charge to the consumer. Charge for estimate.

A merchant cannot charge a price for making an estimate unless he advises the consumer of the price before undertaking to make the estimate. 1978, c. 9, s. 168. Repairs not included in estimate. 172. The merchant shall not carry out any repairs not provided for in the accepted estimate before obtaining the express authorization of the consumer. Record of verbal estimate. In the case where the merchant obtains a verbal authorization, he must record it in the estimate, indicating the date, the time, the name of the person who gave it and, where such is the case, the telephone number dialed. 1978, c. 9, s. 172.

Merchant or manufacturer at fault. 272. If the merchant or the manufacturer fails to fulfil an obligation imposed on him by this Act, by the regulations or by a voluntary undertaking made under

section 314 or whose application has been extended by an order under

section 315.1, the consumer may demand, as the case may be, subject to the other recourses provided by this Act, (

a) the specific performance of the obligation; (

b) the authorization to execute it at the merchant's or manufacturer's expense; (

c) that his obligations be reduced; (

d) that the contract be rescinded; (

e) that the contract be set aside; or (

f) that the contract be annulled, without prejudice to his claim in damages, in all cases. He may also claim punitive damages. 1978, c. 9, s. 272; 1992, c. 58, s. 1; 1999, c. 40, s. 234 . [ 14 ] No written estimate was given to the plaintiff before the repairs were done. Consequently, the remedies provided for by this Act are opened to the plaintiff Dawes. [ 15 ] Part of her claim is for parts that she paid (382,37$) or repairs done somewhere else (390,30$). That part of her claim is distinct and should be looked at differently. For these items, she bears the burden of proof.

The Civil code of Québec indicates the following in that regard. 2803. A person wishing to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. A person who alleges the nullity, modification or extinction of a right shall prove the facts on which he bases his allegation. 1991, c. 64, a. 2803. 2804.

Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. 1991, c. 64, a. 2804. [ 16 ] In regards to the lack of written estimate, the Court considers that even if the estimate was not given in writing, she agreed to repairs that would cost 1 000$ (plus taxes). Notwithstanding this estimate or lack thereof, the proof shows the repairs that were done for the difference in price were needed, appropriate and not overpriced.

[17] In such matters, the jurisprudence have recognized that it is open to the Courts to choose the proper remedy under

section 272of the C.P.A. (see for example John Scotti Automobile c. Tremblay (QC CQ), 2001 R.J.Q. 742). [18] The natural remedy in such case is to resolve the contract and order that each party restore to the other the prestation it hasreceived (article 1608 C.c.Q.). It is not possible in this case, obviously, since the plaintiff have sold the truck in the meantime, but alsobecause it is not possible to "unrepair" the engine and exhaust system. [19] Regarding such situations, one author, Me Claude Masse, in a book on C.P.A.

"Loi sur la protection du consommateur,analyse et commentaires, Les Éditions Yvon Blais Inc. " writes the following: Cas où la remise en état est impossible. Lorsque la remise en état est impossible, il y a lieu de distinguer ici les cas où le consommateurs'est fait imposer des travaux qui n'ont jamais été demandés par lui, de la situation où la commande de travaux a bel et bien été faite parle client mais sans divulgation pour lui des coûts au sens de l'article 168 L.P.C.

Dans le premier cas, le contrat n'a jamais existé etl'impossibilité de remettre les parties en état doit retomber à notre avis sur le réparateur puisque c'est entièrement par sa faute que destravaux ont été effectués sans droit sur le véhicule. C'est la deuxième situation, celle où les réparations ont été demandées par leconsommateur, qui est de loin la plus difficile.

L'article 1699, alinéa 2 déclare dans ce cas que: Le Tribunal peut, exceptionnellement, refuser la restitution lorsqu'elle aurait pour effet d'accorder à l'une ou l'autre des parties, débiteurou créancier, un avantage indu, à moins qu'il ne juge suffisant, dans ce cas, de modifier plutôt l'étendue ou les modalités de la restitution. On doit noter également le contenu de l'article 1604, alinéa 3 C.c.Q. En fait, les tribunaux se sont largement prévalus de cette marge demanoeuvre, même avant les précisions apportées par le nouveau Code civil du Québec.

En ce qui a trait aux modalités de la restitution,on doit noter que les articles 1700 à 1706 C.c.Q. , tout particulièrement l'article 1703 C.c.Q., font une large place à la notion de bonne foiet à celle de faute.

L'article 1703 C.c.Q. déclare à cet effet: Le droit d'être remboursé des impenses faites au bien sujet à la restitution est réglé conformément aux dispositions du livre des biensapplicables au possesseur de bonne foi, ou s'il y a mauvaise foi ou si la cause de la restitution est due à la faute de celui qui a l'obligationde restituer, à celles qui sont applicables au possesseur de mauvaise foi. Les tribunaux québécois ont fait preuve de beaucoup de créativité dans le cas de l'impossibilité de remettre les parties en état.

Deuxsolutions différentes ont été adoptées de façon générale dans les cas où la réparation a été demandée par le consommateur mais oùaucune évaluation ne lui a été présentée, en violation de l'article 168 L.P.C. Ces deux courants jurisprudentiels peuvent se résumercomme suit:

a) La ligne dure: la L.P.C. est d'ordre public. Le commerçant devait connaître son obligation et il doit être considéré fautif s'il ne larespecte pas. La réparation est dans ce cas sans frais pour le consommateur. Ce serait là, autrement, un moyen de rendre cettedisposition sans effet. Cette attitude de la part de nos tribunaux est illustrée par les décisions rapportées ci-après aux nos 1, 4, 6, 11, 12,15, 17, 20 et 41. Cette position semble connaître un regain dans la jurisprudence récente.

b) La ligne modérée: même si le commerçant n'a pas respecté l'obligation de divulgation qui lui était faite en vertu de l'article 168L.P.C. , la réparation a été voulue par le consommateur et ce dernier doit en payer un prix raisonnable. Cette remise en équilibre desparties découle de l'esprit et de la lettre des articles 8 et 9 L.P.C. Il en résulterait autrement un avantage indu pour le consommateur. Letribunal réduit dans ce cas l'obligation du consommateur à la valeur des pièces et des travaux et à ce que la consommateur auraitnormalement accepté de payer.

Cette attitude de la part de nos tribunaux, qui est la plus ancienne, est quant à elle, illustrée par lesdécisions rapportées ci-après aux nos 8, 16, 18, 19, 21, 27, 29 30, 32, 38, 43, 48, 50, 53 à 55, 58 et 59. [20] It appears more appropriate, especially in the present circumstances, to choose the "moderate line". Several other decisionsseem to accept it also (Plante c. John Scotti Automotive Ltée 2010 QCCQ 4350, Mistassini Dodge Chrysler Ltée c. Tremblay C.Q. 29août 2002, AZ-50144833, 66202683 Canada Inc. (Audi Prestige) c. Fouques, C.Q. 26 avril 2010, AZ-50636517, John Scotti AutomobileLtée c.

Tremblay, C.Q. 15 février 2001, (QC CQ), AZ-01031197 et Bourdages c. Garage du Campeur Inc., 28 juin2002, AZ-50141343). [21] For the Court, the default of the defendant to give a written estimate is a fault, and should be sanctioned. On the other hand,considering that the repairs were needed and accepted by the plaintiff, a compensation of 300$ appear sufficient to reaffirm the necessityto abide by the obligation of the C.P.A.

That amount will be awarded to the plaintiff. [22] As to the remainder of the claim, the plaintiff has not brought any proof to overcome her burden and prove that the defendantwas responsible for the failure of her catalytic converter. The same can be said about the link between the expenses incurred at theChevrolet dealership (exhibit P-5) and the repairs performed by the defendant. This demand should fail. [23] Given the limited success of the plaintiff's demand, no cost will be awarded to her.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [24] GRANT in part the action. [25] CONDEMN the defendant to pay to the plaintiff an amount of 300$ with interest at the annual rate of 5% and the additional indemnity provided for by

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, as of February 18th 2008. THE WHOLE, WITHOUT COST.

__________________________________ Serge Champoux, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: November 16 th 2010