2015 QCCQ 6490, 2015 QCCQ 6490

Katrin Leblond Design inc. c. Entreprises PST inc. 2015 QCCQ 6490 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL No: 500-32-144086-149 DATE: June 25, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ KATRIN LEBLOND DESIGN INC. Plaintiff v. LES ENTREPRISES PST INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Katrin Leblond Design Inc. (“Design”) claims cancelation of the purchase of the surveillance system it acquired from Les Entreprises PST Inc. (“PST”) for the sum of $3,213.55. [ 2 ] PST contests, stating that the one year contractual warranty was expired when Design first advised it of a malfunction in the system. [ 3 ] The uncontested evidence is that the contractual warranty was in fact of a one year duration. [ 4 ] During this period, although the installer of the surveillance system did once perform a follow-up on its initial setup, no complaint was ever made to PST by Design’s President, Ms Katrin Leblond. [ 5 ] Although Ms Leblond appears to have asked advice from the alarm system provider during this period, this confusion can in no way be attributed to any fault on the part of PST. [ 6 ] When at last PST was advised of a defect in September 2014 (18 months after the purchase), it did send a technician, free of charge to Design’s boutique to verify the system.

Two of the five cameras were then defective. PST was ready to replace these cameras free of charge notwithstanding the expiry of the warranty. Ms Leblond refused. [ 7 ] Design invokes the Consumer Protection Act [1] . This Act does not apply because Design is not a natural person and therefore cannot be a consumer. 1. In this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise, […] (e) “consumer” means a natural person, except a merchant who obtains goods or services for the purposes of his business; [ 8 ] In any case, it was Design’s burden to prove that the surveillance system had an inherent defect of some sort.

The testimony of Ms Leblond alone is insufficient to prove this. This is particularly true in view of the testimony given by the technician who has stated that a number of phenomena could have caused the defects he found in the two broken cameras, particularly a power surge in the electrical system of Design’s business premises. [ 9 ] Since Design has not presented preponderant evidence, its claim must be dismissed. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES the claim; CONDEMNS Katrin Leblond Design Inc. to reimburse to Les Entreprises PST Inc. the sum of $175 for judicial disbursements.

__________________________________ SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: June 2, 2015