2015 QCCQ 10567, 2015 QCCQ 10567

Brodkin c. 1143718113 BMW Laval 2015 QCCQ 10567 COURT OF QUEBEC “Small Claims Division” CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-138570-132 DATE: October 30, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MAGALI LEWIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MITCHELL BRODKIN Plaintiff vs. 1143718113 BMW LAVAL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Alleging that the car he purchased from the Defendant was defective and that the defect was covered under the warranty, Plaintiff claims damages in the amount of $7,000 from the Defendant. [ 2 ] The Defendant contests the claim, arguing that the condition of the vehicle on July 16, 2012, resulted from Plaintiff’s extremely carefree driving of the vehicle.

It also argues that Plaintiff’s failure to formally notify the Defendant before repairing the car resulted in the Defendant being deprived of its right to have the car evaluated by an independent expert and gather the necessary evidence to establish the exact cause of damages on the car, and eventually honor the warranty in the event that the expertise would have ruled out Plaintiff’s driving as the source of the damage. QUESTIONS AT ISSUE [ 3 ] The Tribunal will answer the following questions:

a) Is Plaintiff’s failure to have summoned the Defendant to repair his car under the BMW Protection Plan or the legal warranty, fatal to his claim?

b) Is Plaintiff’s claim receivable in application of Defendant’s obligations to provide him a car in good working condition and/or exempt of defect?

c) Has Plaintiff established the value of the compensation he is entitled to? CONTEXT [ 4 ] On April 18, 2012, Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant a used 2008 BMW M3 Coupe [1] .

The car was protected by the manufacturer’s “Certified Series Protection Plan” [2] , so that except for a $50 handling charge any authorised BMW retailer in Canada would repair defects in material and workmanship free of charge. [ 5 ] The Protection Plan entered into force on the expiry of the vehicle’s new car Limited Warranty and was to remain in effect until the first of the two following occurrences: 160,000 kilometres or June 19, 2014 [3] .

At the date of purchase, the odometer of the car indicated 36,000 kilometres. [ 6 ] The Exclusions and limits of liability clauses of the Protection Plan read as follows: EXCLUSION Ware and Tear Related Repairs The protection Plan is designed to protect you from the expenses of repairs associated with the unanticipated or unexpected failure of a

covered component as a result of a defect in material or workmanship only . However, there are components or parts on your Vehicle that are subject to gradual deterioration or wear as a result of driving habits, conditions or use of the vehicle. Coverage for items such as (but not limited to) piston rings, valves and valve guides, suspension bushings, ball joints, tie rod ends, driveshaft flex discs (guibo joint) and other parts and/or components covered by this Protection Plan are limited to defects in material or workmanship only.

In addition to wear and tear related repairs described above, your Protection Plan Agreement does not cover the cost of any repairs (including replacement parts), or other expense which is related to the following: (…) • Damage to the Vehicle caused by collision, neglect , accident, misuse or improper maintenance or repair by persons other than Authorized BMW Retailers, or environment influences; (…) LIMITS OF LIABILITY The liability of BMW under the Protection Plan Agreement is limited to the coverage described above.

BMW’s maximum limit of liability for any one claim under your Protection Plan Agreement shall be the lesser of (

i) the cost of repairs, and (ii) the fair market value of the Vehicle as determined by BMW, acting reasonably, immediately prior to the breakdown giving rise to the claim hereunder. To the extent permitted by law, BMW will not be responsible for loss of use of the Vehicle, loss of time, inconvenience, lodging, meals, commercial loss or any other special incidental or consequential damage for any breach of any express or implied warranty applicable to the Vehicle, including the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. (…) The Protection Plan Agreement will be null and void if (…) (

b) the Vehicle has been used for competition driving, racing , police or emergency services, commercial livery (rent or hire) or commercial delivery; (…) [4] (Underscore added) [ 7 ] On May 24, 2012, Plaintiff brought the car to the Defendant, complaining of a noise coming from the back of the car.

The Defendant noted the following in Plaintiff’s file: Customer states that there is a cluncking (sic) noise from rear differential when turning Slip-Stick effect between the lined disc and steel disc Order booster oil for rear axle diff Drain old diff oil and refill with new booster oil and R/T Need to wait 1500km with new oil before noise completely gone [5] [ 8 ] Jamie Despres, Defendant’s sales representative that was in charge of Plaintiff’s file, explained that vehicles of the “M” category have a sport engine and a locked differential that distributes power to both wheels. [ 9 ] Further to Plaintiff’s complaint, the regular oil in the differential was replaced by booster oil because the noise was indicative that Plaintiff’s sporty driving was putting some strain on the differential, which the booster oil should ease and so allow better functioning of the differential. [ 10 ] On July 4 th , 2012, after having driven the car for at least 1,500km to allow the booster oil to take effect, Plaintiff showed up again at the Defendant, still complaining of a noise coming from the rear differential. [ 11 ] At the suggestion of Jamie Despres, Plaintiff went on a road test with one of Defendant’s mechanics who concluded that the noise was normal and that it would disappear with time.

Although there is no note about Plaintiff’s visit, Jamie Despres, who testified at the hearing, remembered it and explained that since the car was not put on the lift and there was no request for work to be performed to the car, there was not need to put a note in Plaintiff’s file. [ 12 ] Twelve days later, on the evening of Friday July 16, 2012, Plaintiff was driving the car; he heard a popping noise, felt a vibration and after a few feet, it was impossible to accelerate.

It felt like someone was pressing the brakes. [ 13 ] He called a towing; noticed that a piece was hanging off the rear of the car and had the car towed to the Defendant’s lot. [ 14 ] Jamie Despress explained that on July 17, 2012, when the Defendant inspected Plaintiff’s car, it noticed that the nuts and eyelets that supported the rear differential were broken and that the exhaust pipe was damaged by the impact of the differential. [ 15 ] The damages to the car were extensive: the exhaust, the driveshaft, the chassis, and the axle shaft, in addition to the differential were damaged.

Terry Grant, the Defendant’s manager that testified at the hearing, declared that he had never seen such extensive

damages to a car not implicated in an accident. [ 16 ] According to Jamie Despres, if the nuts of the differential had been damaged before the differential fell off on July 16, 2012, it would have been visible and would have been seen when the oil of the differential was changed in May, two months earlier.

The damage to the car had to have been caused by something. [ 17 ] For the Defendant to proceed with the repairs under the Protection Plan, the repairs had to be authorised by BMW Canada. [ 18 ] The information stored in the car’s onboard computer was transmitted electronically to the BMW center in Munich, Germany, to be decrypted by the digital electronic motor system, a system similar to the black boxes of aeronautics. [ 19 ] The results of the diagnostic test ran on the engine of Plaintiff’s car read as follows: Maximum rpms reached 8686 Reference rpm from Vanos 8710 Rpm limit for M differential intervention 8033 Rpm limit for injector intervention 8450 (…) Mileage 38990 km Average speed rear 24.125 km Accelerator pedal position 100% Air Volume 1139.4 kg/h Torque required by driver 3216 Resulting clutch torque 323.6 Actual clutch torque 312Nm Gradient 7833 Cooling liquid temperature 89.5 0 C Oil temperature 101.6 0 C (…) Gear 1.gear (…) Maximum speed 214.625 km/h Top speed 38.125 Average rear axle speed 210.125 km/h Engine speed 8049 Torque required by driver 100.1 First clutch torque 332.8 Nm Mileage 38512 First gear 4.gear (Underscore added) [ 20 ] The Defendant concluded from the information it obtained from the engine of the car that Plaintiff was racing with it and not only did it refuse to repair the car under the Protection Plan because it concluded that the damages resulted from Plaintiff’s abnormal driving, but it cancelled the car’s Protection Plan altogether. [ 21 ] Jamie Despres declared that he sent the results of the tests ran of the computer of the car to Plaintiff.

Although some of the information was written in German and the translation was not available yet, the speed of the car and the information concerning the revolution of the engine was clearly identifiable on the document. Plaintiff was also explained the meaning of the information obtained and the reason for the Defendant’s refusal to assume the cost of the repairs.

[ 22 ] Accordingly, the Defendant provided Plaintiff with a Service Estimate of the costs for repairing his car: $9,319.30 for parts, and $1,113.61 for labour, plus applicable taxes [6] . [ 23 ] Plaintiff’s car was at the Defendant’s garage for three weeks, the Defendant waiting for his instructions. At one point, Plaintiff had the car towed away from Defendant’s garage. Right away he proceeded to repairing it himself. [ 24 ] He had completed the repairs by August 18 or 19, 2012.

He is claiming damages in the amount of $7,000 that he detailed as follows [7] : Automaster parts $1,678.70 Megan racing exhaust system $1,172.69 Rent car $377.95 1 month payment to BMW $770 Alignment $178.92 Labour as per Defendant’s estimate $1,163 (Underscore added) [ 25 ] According to Jamie Despres, when Plaintiff came to take possession of his car, he told him that he was going to have it inspected by an independent expert and would bring it back. [ 26 ] Plaintiff did not have the car examined by an expert.

He did not take pictures of the car when he was repairing it nor did he take pictures of the parts that he replaced. He did not keep the broken parts.

In fact, he did not inform the Defendant that he was towing the car to repair it nor that he intended to contest the Defendant’s opinion as to the cause of the damage and its refusal to repair the car free of charge. [ 27 ] The next communication the Defendant received from Plaintiff after he had his car towed away from its lot was the claim that he filed with the Court on May 22, 2013, ten months later. [ 28 ] In support of its contestation, the Defendant provided the following motives: 9.

Les informations enregistrée dans l’ordinateur de bord ont été transmises par voie électronique au centre BMW à Munich, Allemagne, laquelle est la seule a pouvoir décrypter les informations enregistrées par le système DME (digital motor electronic) dont le système s’apparente à celle des boites noires dans l’aéronautique; 10. Le rapport fait état d’une conduite extrêmement insoucieuse du véhicule quia conduit aux dégâts matériels mentionnés plu haut. Le véhicule a été rétrogradé en première vitesse à très haute vitesse ce quia conduit à un surrégime du moteur à 8700rpm, bien au-delà des limites du moteur, (…) 11.

Cette manœuvre a conduit directement aux dégâts au niveau de l’arbre de transmission et à l’arrière du véhicule, les pièces ne pouvant supporter les contraintes qui y ont été assujetties; 12. En conséquence, la défenderesse a mentionné au demandeur qu’elle ne pouvait honorer la garantie, puisque les réparations tombent dans la catégorie des exclusions, puisque les dommages sont dus à une conduites abusive et négligente; 13. Le demandeur a choisi de refuser de réparer le véhicule à ses frais et a remorqué sa voiture hors de la place d’affaires de la défenderesse; 14.

Le demandeur n’a pas contacté la défenderesse depuis cette date; 15. La défenderesse n’a pas été mise en demeure avant l’introduction de cette action judiciaire, ceci a pour effet de : • Priver la défenderesse de son pouvoir d’enquête et d’expertise la réclamation alléguée par le demandeur de façon formelle et par un expert indépendant; • Le délai prive la défenderesse de son droit à une défense pleine et entière; • Empêcher la défenderesse de remédier à la situation; 16.

Ce défaut de produire une mise en demeure est fatal à la requête du demandeur; (…) ANALYSIS [ 29 ] Anyone who wants to assert a right shall prove on balance of probabilities the facts that sustain his claim. Safe exception, the clear and convincing evidence that makes the existence of a fact more probable than its nonexistence [8] satisfies the test [9] . A mere suspicion, even very important, does not satisfy that test [10] . [ 30 ] In the case of an action for damages, the Plaintiff must demonstrate, under the same rules of evidence, the obligation or fault of

the party being sued, the damage suffered and the causal link between the fault and the damage. [ 31 ] If the evidence is not compelling enough, or if it is contradictory and the judge is unable to determine where the truth lies, the one upon whom falls the burden of persuading the Court of the merits of the claim loses [11] .

The law: [ 32 ] T he Civil Code of Québec and the Consumer Protection Act [12] protect consumers in several ways against the poor performance of goods they purchase. [ 33 ] The Consumer Protection Act provides for a guarantee of good working order ( art. 159 - 163 ) as well as an obligation to provide a property fit for the purpose for which it is normally intended ( art. 37 - 39 ), the dispositions reading as follows: 37. Goods forming the object of a contract must be fit for the purposes for which goods of that kind are ordinarily used. 38.

Goods forming the object of a contract must be durable in normal use for a reasonable length of time, having regard to their price, the terms of the contract and the conditions of their use . 159. The sale or long-term lease of a used automobile carries with it a warranty that the automobile will remain in good working order (…) (

c) for a period of one month or 1 700 kilometres, whichever occurs first, in the case of a class C automobile. (…) 160. For the application of

section 159, used automobiles are divided into the following classes: (…) (

b) class B automobiles, namely, where they are not contemplated in paragraph a and not more than three years have elapsed between the date the manufacturer put his automobiles of the same model and of the same model year on the market and the date of the sale or long- term lease contemplated in the said section, provided that the automobile has not covered more than 60,000 kilometres; (

c) class C automobiles, namely, where they are not contemplated in paragraph a or b and not more than five years have elapsed between the date the manufacturer put his automobiles of the same model and of the same model year on the market and the date of the sale or long-term lease contemplated in the said section, provided that the automobile has not covered more than 80,000 kilometres; (…) 161. The warranty provided for by

section 159 does not cover: (

a) normal maintenance service and the replacement of parts resulting from it; (

b) interior upholstery or exterior decorative items; (

c) damage resulting from abuse by the consumer after delivery of the automobile; and (

d) any accessory provided for by regulation. 163. The warranty takes effect upon the delivery of the used automobile. (Underscore added) [ 34 ] Plaintiff’s car is of category C in application of the criteria of

article 160 of the Consumer Protection Act and he could have claimed the benefit of the warranty that the vehicle would remain in good working order for a period of one month or 1 , 700km . Since the damage occurred more than a month after delivery of the car , this warranty did not apply. [ 35 ] Applied however, t he legal guarantee of durability for a reasonable period provided for at

article 38 cited above.

Although that guarantee facilitates the proof of the default of the good, the seller and the manufacturer are not liable for defects resulting from the consumer’s misuse of the good [13] . [ 36 ] In the present case, adds to those warranties, the BMW Protection Plan, in virtue of which the Defendant is liable to repair defects in material and workmanship. [ 37 ] The law provides both the remedies available to the consumer when the seller has not respected his obligations and the good that he has sold prematurely ceased to function adequately, and the procedure the consumer must follow to get the seller to comply with his obligations. [ 38 ] As a prerequisite to the exercise of a judicial recourse the law provides that the consumer must summon the seller to comply with his obligation. [ 39 ] The relevant provisions are found in articles 1602 , 1590 , 1594 and 1595 of the Civil Code of Québec , and read as follows: 1602.

Where the debtor is in default, the creditor may perform the obligation or cause it to be performed at the expense of the debtor.

A creditor wishing to avail himself of this right shall so notify the debtor in the judicial or extrajudicial demand by which he puts him in default , except in cases where the debtor is in default by operation of law or by the terms of the contract itself. 1590. An obligation confers on the creditor the right to demand that the obligation be performed in full, properly and without delay.

Where the debtor fails to perform his obligation without justification on his part and he is in default, the creditor may , without prejudice to his right to the performance of the obligation in whole or in part by equivalence, (1) force specific performance of the obligation; (2) obtain, in the case of a contractual obligation, the resolution or resiliation of the contract or the reduction of his own correlative obligation; (3) take any other measure provided by law to enforce his right to the performance of the obligation. 1594.

A debtor may be in default by the terms of the contract itself, when it contains a stipulation that the mere lapse of time for performing it will have that effect. A debtor may also be put in default by an extrajudicial demand addressed to him by his creditor to perform the obligation , a judicial demand filed against him or the sole operation of law. 1595. The extrajudicial demand by which a creditor puts his debtor in default shall be made in writing .

The demand shall allow the debtor sufficient time for performance , having regard to the nature of the obligation and the circumstances; otherwise the debtor may perform the obligation within a reasonable time after the demand. (Underscore added) [ 40 ] In the Consumer Protection Act the merchant or manufacturer’s obligations can be found at

section 151 that read as follows: 151. In the case of repairs under a warranty provided for by this division or under a conventional warranty: (

a) the merchant or the manufacturer shall assume the reasonable costs of towing or breakdown service for the automobile, whether the towing or breakdown service is carried out by the merchant, the manufacturer or a third person; (

b) the merchant or the manufacturer shall carry out the repairs to the automobile and assume their cost or shall permit the consumer to have the repairs carried out by a third person and shall assume their cost. (Underscore added) [ 41 ]

Section 151

b) of the Consumer Protection Act has been interpreted as requiring that the consumer notify the seller, merchant or manufacturer of his intent to repair the good failing which his recourse should be dismissed [14] . [ 42 ] Authors Jobin and Vézina explain clearly the objective of the summon to perform: 699 – Buts – La mise en demeure est l'acte par lequel le créancier, à l'échéance de l'obligation, constate formellement le défaut ou le retard de son débiteur à payer. Elle sert donc à clarifier les positions respectives des parties et remplit plusieurs fonctions .

D'abord, elle est une mise en garde de la part du créancier qu'il se prépare à exiger devant la justice, si besoin est, l'exécution de l'obligation . Elle constitue en outre un avis formel que le créancier ne songe pas à prolonger tacitement le délai accordé au débiteur pour s'exécuter .

Le créancier évite dès lors que son silence, dans le contexte d'une inexécution contractuelle en particulier, laisse présumer qu'il consent tacitement à une prorogation du délai d'exécution, surtout lorsque le temps n'est pas « de l'essence de la convention » et qu'il peut sembler accorder par là implicitement un délai de grâce ou même une prolongation du terme de droit 1 .

Si les règles de la mise en demeure imposent que le créancier accorde un délai d'exécution suffisant au débiteur (art. 1525 , al. 2, et 1596 C.c.Q. ), la demande d'exécution qu'elle comporte signifie du même coup au débiteur que le créancier n'entend pas prolonger le délai d'exécution au-delà de celui qu'il a ainsi fixé. Enfin, pour le débiteur, la mise en demeure est un rappel, parfois utile, que le temps est venu pour lui de payer et permet à ce dernier de minimiser les conséquences de son défaut de s'exécuter.

Cet ultime rappel à l'ordre du débiteur défaillant constitue une application du devoir de bonne foi du créancier dans l'exécution de l'obligation ( art. 1595 C.c.Q.) et permet d'éviter la judiciarisation inutile de certains litiges. En mettant l'accent sur le droit du débiteur à une dernière chance, le législateur québécois s'aligne sur un fort courant, dans les législations modernes, en faveur d'un droit du débiteur de remédier à son défaut (ou « right to cure »).

La loi prévoit deux formes principales de mise en demeure : la demande extrajudiciaire ( art. 1595 C.c.Q. ), qui est de loin la forme la plus utilisée en pratique, et la demande en justice ( art.1596 C.c.Q.). 700 – Mise en demeure extrajudiciaire – Le Code précise désormais que la demande extrajudiciaire doit être écrite dans tous les cas ( art. 1595 , al. 1 C.c.Q. ), peu importe que l'obligation résulte d'un contrat écrit ou verbal. (…) Par ailleurs, puisque ce droit à un écrit n'est pas d'ordre public, le débiteur pourrait y renoncer tacitement, notamment en donnant suite aux demandes formulées verbalement par le créancier ou en venant constater l'inexécution reprochée.

Pour qu'elle ait une véritable portée d'un point de vue juridique, la mise en demeure extrajudiciaire doit énoncer, ne serait-ce que de façon succincte, l'existence de l'obligation dont se réclame le créancier, la nature des manquements imputés au débiteur, la prestation exigée, ainsi que l'intention du créancier de se prévaloir de sanctions advenant que l'inexécution persiste . (…) Le créancier doit également indiquer dans la mise en demeure le délai durant lequel il considère que le débiteur peut encore s'exécuter .

Ce délai doit être raisonnable et donc accorder au débiteur un temps suffisant, eu égard à la nature de l'obligation et aux circonstances particulières de l'espèce(…) [15] .

(References omitted – Underscore added) [ 43 ] The Court of appeal has long established, in Caron v. Centre Routier inc . [16] , that the consumer is required to send a formal notice to the vendor, demanding that he execute his obligations and inform him that, should he fail to comply with the demand, he would be held responsible for damages, the Court having expressed itself as follows: 2.

Ce qu'aurait pu et dû réclamer Caron, dans sa mise en demeure , ce ne sont pas surtout des dommages qui seraient la conséquence de l'inexécution de l'obligation du Centre, mais plutôt l'exécution pure et simple de l'obligation de garantie du Centre et, peut-être accessoirement, les dommages qui en résulteraient. 3 Le Centre routier s'était engagé à livrer à Caron un objet utilisable exempt de vices, ce que manifestement il n'a pas fait.

Cette obligation de livraison en est une qui requiert la mise en demeure. 4 En définitive, le Centre routier n'a pu parfaire son obligation et livrer à Caron le camion qu'il aurait dû lui livrer.

Il devait en être informé et devait être requis de s'exécuter pour qu'on puisse subséquemment lui demander une diminution de prix résultant des vices cachés [ 44 ] Our Court has later confirmed this principle in Pulitano v. 9047-1863 Québec inc. [17] , Justice Monique Fradette having written the following: 11 Le demandeur soutient que l'acheteur qui exerce son recours en vertu des articles 37 et 38 de la L.P.C. : “ n'a qu'à établir que le bien n'a pas eu une durée raisonnable eu égard à son prix et aux conditions d'utilisation du bien (nos soulignés), sans avoir à faire la preuve que le vice ou le défaut dont il se plaint est nécessairement antérieur au contrat ou qu'il était caché lors de la vente ”.

Enfin, dit-il, comme l'antériorité du vice n'est pas requise en vertu des articles 37 et 38 L.P.C. , cela explique pourquoi la dénonciation écrite du vice n'est pas requise. 12 Même si le Tribunal acceptait la proposition du demandeur à l'effet que la dénonciation écrite du vice n'est pas requise en vertu des articles 37 et 38 de la L.P.C. , cela ne veut pas dire pour autant que l'acheteur n'a pas à mettre en demeure son vendeur de s'exécuter avant de procéder lui-même aux réparations et d'en réclamer le prix. 13 La mise en demeure doit être subséquente à l'inexécution du débiteur et antérieure à la réparation du manquement . (…) 14 Le Tribunal considère que la mise en demeure, préalablement à la réparation du manquement, est essentielle même si le recours est exercé en vertu des articles 37 et 38 de la L.P.J.

Conclure autrement, équivaudrait à livrer le vendeur pieds et poings liés sans possibilité pour lui de recueillir les éléments de preuve pour se constituer une défense, le cas échéant. À

titre d'exemple, comment un vendeur pourrait-il établir que le consommateur a fait un usage abusif du bien si les réparations ont déjà été effectuées? Poser la question, c'est y répondre. (References omitted – Underscore in the text, bold added)

a) Is Plaintiff’s failure to have summoned the Defendant to repair his car under BMW Protection Plan or the legal warranty, fatal to his claim? [ 45 ] In accordance with the principle stated above, sending a letter to the vendor or manufacturer demanding that they comply with their obligation to repair the car free of charge in execution of the Protection Plan was a prerequisite to Plaintiff’s recourse. [ 46 ] Having failed to respect the prerequisite and having repaired the car prior to demanding that the Defendant respects what Plaintiff considered was his obligation – that is repair the car free of charge, and filing his claim, Plaintiff has deprived the Defendant from: first, having the car further inspected to collect material evidence of the cause of the damage to the car and, second, allows the Defendant to comply with its obligation under the Protection Plan if indeed a mechanical inspection would have revealed that the cause of the damage was covered under the plan. [ 47 ] The Defendant did not refuse to honour its Protection Plan.

It was actually looking to get the repairs approved by the head office when the tests ran on the engine alerted it that Plaintiff was not driving the car as expected, but was in fact using it for a prohibited purpose, i.e. racing that most probably caused its damage. [ 48 ] Consequently, Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. [ 49 ] The Court will answer the next question raised by this case, notwithstanding the answer to the first one.

b) Is Plaintiff’s claim receivable in application of Defendant’s obligation to provide him a car in good working condition and/or exempt of defect? [ 50 ] The Court answers this question by the negative for the following reasons. [ 51 ] The Defendant’s Protection Plan, the Civil Code of Québec and the Consumer Protection Act , all provide that the Defendant’s obligation to provide Plaintiff with a car in good working condition and exempt of defect is conditional to Plaintiff driving the car adequately, not misusing it.

The Protection Plan specifically forbids Plaintiff from using the car for competition driving and racing. [ 52 ] The information the Defendant obtained from the engine of Plaintiff’s car indicate that it was pushed beyond its capacity. On July 17, 2012, the Defendant took pictures of damaged parts of the car. [18] [ 53 ] The Defendant contends that the first picture shows a suspension bushing torn. In response to Defendant’s contention, Plaintiff argued that when he dismantled the part, he saw that the bushing actually had two components that were never attached.

As already mentioned, Plaintiff’s testimony is not corroborated by photographs or an independent witness. As to the Defendant, it was deprived of

its right to inspect the car by Plaintiff’s failure to notify it of his intentions. [ 54 ] Pictures of the tires of the car indicate that pieces of rubber are missing, indicative, according to the Defendant, that the car was driven at high speed generating extreme heat that caused pieces of tires to spread under the car, as can be seen on a picture from underneath the car. [ 55 ] The Defendant files as exhibit D-5 a print out of the work that another BMW dealership performed on Plaintiff’s car, after he repaired it. [ 56 ] On September 6, 2012, a little over two weeks after he repaired the damaged parts of his vehicle, Plaintiff consulted BMW Canbec complaining again of a clunking noise coming from the rear end when he would start to put the car in motion from a stop position and when turning.

The dealer cleaned the brakes and took the car on a road test, to conclude that the noise was coming from the differential area. Since the manufacturer Protection Plan of his car had been cancelled, Plaintiff was charged $207.92 for that diagnosis.

He is not claiming compensation for that amount. [ 57 ] The Defendant filed that document (D-5) to challenge Plaintiff’s declaration that after he repaired his car in August of 2012, he did not experience any other problems with it. [ 58 ] In response to that information, Plaintiff contended that the noise he complained about did not come from the differential; that it was caused by some piece of metal that was bent and that he unbent himself. [ 59 ] Although Plaintiff denied having driven the car at very high speed causing the damage to his car, the Court noticed that he installed a racing exhaust system on the car when he repaired it in August of 2012. [ 60 ] Plaintiff did not assign a mechanic to explain to the Court the damage to his car and what has or could have caused it.

Such a testimony would have enlightened the Court as to the state of the car [19] and establ ish normal wear and tear of the parts that were damaged in Plaintiff car in consideration of the price, the provisions of the contract, the conditions of the use of the car, its mileage and the exact nature of the problem [20] . [ 61 ] In light of the Defendant’s evidence, i.e. photographs and information from the car’s engine, evidence that it had communicated to Plaintiff in July of 2012, Plaintiff failed to present any evidence that would establish the probable cause of the damage to his car and was unsuccessful in convincing the Court that he did not cause the damage to his car by driving it at extreme speeds. [ 62 ] Consequently, Plaintiff’s claim would have been dismissed. [ 63 ] In light of the answers to the two first questions, the Court does not answer the last one. [ 64 ] WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 65 ] REJECTS the claim; [ 66 ] CONDEMNS Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant the judicial costs of $204. __________________________________ MAGALI LEWIS, J.C.Q.

Date of hearing: September 22, 2015 Une

partie peut obtenir la traduction en langue française du présent jugement en adressant une demande écrite à cet effet à la Directrice du secteur civil du Palais de justice de Montréal. [15] BAUDOUIN, J.-L. et P.-G. JOBIN, Les obligations , 7e édition par P.-G. JOBIN et N. VÉZINA, Éditions Yvon Blais, 2013, p. 806-807.