2015 QCCQ 5583, 2015 QCCQ 5583

Pavlova c. Vartanian 2015 QCCQ 5583 COURT OF QUEBEC « Small Claims Division » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL « Civil Division » No: 500-32-144296-144 DATE: May 4, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DOMINIQUE GIBBENS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IRINA PAVLOVA Plaintiff v.

SAMVEL VARTANIAN Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Unhappy with the car body repair and paint job that Samvel Vartanian did on her car, Irina Pavlova claims from him $1,647 representing the estimated cost of having the repair work redone professionally. [ 2 ] Mr. Vartanian does not contest the rather poor quality of his repair work, but claims that it was the best that he could do under the circumstances and that Ms. Pavlova knew and accepted this.

QUESTIONS IN ISSUE [ 3 ] The case raises the following questions:

a) Did Mr. Vartanian deliver the repair work that he undertook to deliver?

b) If not, is Ms. Pavlova entitled to the damages claimed? CONTEXT [ 4 ] In the fall of 2013, Ms. Pavlova had an accident and the left side of her car was damaged. In the spring of 2014, Mr. Vartanian, who lives in her apartment building, undertook to repair the damage for $330. [ 5 ] The work was completed on May 20, 2014. Ms. Pavlova was very unhappy with the results and immediately told Mr. Vartanian. She had already paid $240 for materials, but refused to pay the balance of $90 unless Mr. Vartanian undertook to redo the work.

He refused. [ 6 ] The photographic evidence [1] shows that the body work is amateurish; the color of the new paint is markedly different from the original paint and is yellowed and stained, apparently from dirt and gas; the surface of the paint is uneven, with spots of old paint showing through, pin holes and bubbling in certain areas. A strip of paint at the bottom of the damaged door has also been scraped off. [ 7 ] In the car’s actual state, the estimated cost to have it repaired at a professional garage is $1,647, which Ms. Pavlova claimed from Mr. Vartanian by letter of demand on July 20, 2014. [2] ANALYSIS

a) Did Mr. Vartanian deliver the repair work that he undertook to deliver? [ 8 ] Ms. Pavlova claims that although she understood and accepted that she would not get the “as new” results of a professional car body garage, she was promised a high quality, careful repair job, with only slight nuances of color and patina in the newly painted areas. Mr. Vartanian claims, rather, that he made it clear to Ms.

Pavlova that if she wanted a professional job, she should go to a garage, where she would pay over $1,000 and that his work would be far from the work of a professional car body garage. [ 9 ] The Court prefers the testimony of Ms. Pavlova to that of Mr. Vartanian. Her testimony is detailed and her version of the agreement between the parties is more probable than that of Mr. Vartanian. It seems unlikely that Ms. Pavlova would have entrusted Mr. Vartanian with the repair if he had expressed such serious reservations about the expected results. [ 10 ] The Court therefore concludes, based on the evidence, that Mr.

Vartanian undertook to provide high quality, careful repair work, yet not the “as new” quality of a professional garage. This is the result that he had the obligation to provide to Ms. Pavlova. [3] [ 11 ] Clearly, this is not the result that Ms. Pavlova obtained. The evidence shows that Mr. Vartanian’s repair job was poor and amateurish, to such an extent that the car is now in worse condition than it was prior to the repair.

b) Is Ms. Pavlova entitled to the damages claimed? [ 12 ] Ms. Pavlova claims $1,647, representing the estimated cost of having the car professionally repaired, taking into account its present state. This involves replacing the damaged door. [ 13 ] Granting the full amount claimed would be equivalent to Ms. Pavlova obtaining a “like-new” professional repair job at a cost of $240, rather than the $1,000 or more that she would have paid had she chosen to go to a professional garage from the outset. This would be an unacceptable result. [ 14 ] The law entitles Ms.

Pavlova to compensation for the direct and immediate consequences of Mr. Vartanian’s fault. [4] The compensation should restore Ms. Pavlova to the position she would have been in had Mr. Vartanian provided the agreed repair work, but not put her in a better position. [ 15 ] Under the circumstances, an adequate compensation is to grant Ms. Pavlova an amount that will cover the aggravation of the body work needed to repair her car as a result of Mr. Vartanian’s fault, as well as the amount she paid to Mr. Vartanian. [ 16 ] The Court therefore grants Ms.

Pavlova a total amount of $887 in damages: $647, representing the difference between what she would have paid to have the car professionally repaired at the outset (estimated at $1,000) and the cost of such a repair given the actual state of her car (estimated at $ 1,647) and $240 paid to Mr. Vartanian. FOR THE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the action in part; CONDEMNS the Defendant Samuel Vartanian to pay to the Plaintiff Irina Pavlova the amount of $887, together with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided by

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec as of July 20, 2014. WITH COSTS in the amount of $106 representing the judicial stamp of the Application. __________________________________ DOMINIQUE GIBBENS, J.C.Q . Date of hearing: April 14, 2015