2011 QCCQ 1295, 2011 QCCQ 1295

Stagestep Inc. c. Lekkas (Centre Fitness Globale) 2011 QCCQ 1295 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-117576-092 DATE: January 31, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ STAGESTEP INC. 4701 Bath Street Bldg 46B Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA Plaintiff vs.

GEORGES LEKKAS doing business under the name CENTRE FITNESS GLOBALE and GLOBAL FITNESS 770 Philip Greenfield Park, Quebec J4V 3G6 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Stagestep Inc. sues Georges Lekkas doing business under the name Global Fitness for a balance of $2,946.63 for the supply of vertex flooring for Global Fitness' premises at 5165 Grande Allée in Brossard. [ 2 ] Stagestep failed to attend at the hearing, which was held on two dates.

Mr Lekkas admits that the vertex floor was installed in his premises and that $1,260 was paid toward a total invoice of $4,206.63. [ 3 ] He complains, however, that the flooring was sold to him by Stagestep's Canadian representative Kasha Kwasniewska as being "mopable".

He was greatly disappointed with the performance of the flooring because it readily stained and discoloured and therefore was not an appropriate flooring for the entrance and hallway of his fitness center. [ 4 ] When he complained to Stagestep he was referred to the Canadian representative who since that time no longer responds at the same coordinates. [ 5 ] Mr Lekkas has plans to tear up the flooring and replace it with something more appropriate as soon as the present case is resolved. [ 6 ] In the absence of any contradictory evidence from Stagestep, Mr Lekkas' testimony and that of his employee Theodora Panagopoulos are sufficient to establish that the flooring sold and installed was not in conformity with the description given at the time of sale i.e. a readily washable surface that would not discolour. [ 7 ] It would not be appropriate to resolve the sale: the flooring has been used since it was installed and could not be restituted.

[ 8 ] But given that Stagestep has not provided a product that is in conformity with its obligations, Mr Lekkas is well founded to withhold the balance of payment. If Stagestep had honoured its obligations, it would be entitled to payment. [ 9 ] But, when informed of the Defendant's complaint, Stagestep made it clear, through its lack of response, that it had no intention of attempting to resolve the problem. [ 10 ] In that respect, Stagestep was in default by the sole operation of law.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Plaintiff's action; CONDEMNS the Plaintiff to pay, to the Defendant, judicial costs in the amount of $88. __________________________________ DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. Dates of hearing: May 4, 2010 and January 24, 2011