Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Ownership of the recreational vehicle at the time of the fire, and thus who bore the risk of loss, was the central legal issue.
• The evidentiary value of vehicle registration and insurance in determining ownership was scrutinized, given their administrative nature.
• The court weighed the buyer’s actions (full payment, SAAQ power of attorney, ordering tires, commissioning repairs and an evaluation) as indicia of transfer of ownership.
• Allegations suggesting possible involvement of the seller in a criminal fire, and the vehicle being in a garage recommended by him, were evaluated but found unsupported by evidence.
• Statements exchanged via Messenger after the fire, including the buyer referring to the RV as “my 8500$” and acknowledging having no insurance, were treated as admissions relevant to ownership and risk allocation.
• The possibility of an insurance payout to the seller was analyzed and rejected as a basis for liability, since no indemnity was ever paid and the seller had abandoned any claim after legal advice.

Facts of the case

Julia Couture agreed to purchase a 1981 Ford Econoline E-150 recreational vehicle (RV) from Maxime Daigneault-Dagenais after seeing an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace. On 9 May 2024, she paid a deposit of $1,000 toward the purchase price. On 21 May 2024, she paid the balance of $7,500, for a total of $8,500, thereby fully discharging the agreed price. Following this, the RV remained physically at the Atelier de mécanique J. S. garage, an establishment previously used and recommended by the seller. At that time, the vehicle was still registered and insured in the name of Daigneault-Dagenais. Two days later, on 23 May 2024, while the RV remained at that garage and while registration had not yet been transferred, the vehicle was destroyed by fire.

After the fire, Couture sought to recover the sums she had paid for the RV. She sued Daigneault-Dagenais in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec for $8,500 as reimbursement of the purchase price, plus an additional $2,000 for interest, psychological damages, and exemplary damages, for a total of $10,500. She alleged, in substance, that because the vehicle remained registered and insured in the seller’s name at the time of the loss, ownership – and therefore the risk of loss – still rested with him. She also pointed to the fact that the fire was characterized as criminal in nature and that the vehicle was under the custody of a garage recommended by the seller, suggesting circumstances she found troubling, though without directly attributing the arson to him.

Daigneault-Dagenais resisted the claim, maintaining that he was no longer the owner once Couture had fully paid the purchase price. He acknowledged that he had not yet cancelled the insurance and that he had initially contacted his insurer with a view to claiming an indemnity for the fire. However, he explained that he kept the insurance in place only because the registration still appeared in his name, and after obtaining legal advice and concluding that the vehicle no longer belonged to him, he abandoned the insurance claim and received no payment from his insurer. He denied any involvement in the fire and explained that his prior positive experience with the garage was the reason for recommending it.

Legal issues and analysis

The court identified two questions necessary to resolve the case. First, it had to decide who owned the RV at the time of the fire, because that determined who bore the loss. Second, only in the event it concluded that the seller remained the owner would it consider what damages Couture might be entitled to claim from him.

On the primary question of ownership, the court emphasized that vehicle registration is an administrative measure and that the registration certificate itself does not create or conclusively prove ownership. Jurisprudence confirms that the person in whose name a vehicle is registered is not necessarily its legal owner. Accordingly, the court had to look at all surrounding circumstances to determine who, as a matter of civil law, owned the RV when it burned.

The court reviewed the evidence pointing to continued ownership by Daigneault-Dagenais. It noted that some personal items belonging to him remained in the RV at the time of the fire, such as photographs, an extension cord, and a hose. However, he had removed other personal effects, including clothes and dishes, suggesting he was in the process of vacating the vehicle rather than treating it as still his. The court also accepted his explanation for maintaining the insurance policy in his name, linking it to the still-untransferred registration. Furthermore, although he had initially taken steps toward making an insurance claim, he had ultimately abandoned those efforts and received no indemnity, consistent with his belief that the RV no longer belonged to him.

On the other side of the ledger, the court identified several concrete acts by Couture demonstrating that the benefits and burdens of ownership had effectively shifted to her before the fire. She had paid the full purchase price prior to the loss. On 21 May 2024, at her request, Daigneault-Dagenais signed a power of attorney on a form of the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ), allowing her to proceed with the transfer of registration. The next day, 22 May 2024, she went to the SAAQ but was told she could not complete the registration because an appraisal of the vehicle’s market value was required. On 23 May 2024, she arranged for an evaluator to attend at the garage where the RV was located; the evaluator issued an invoice in her name, reflecting that she was acting in the role of owner. She ordered tires for the vehicle, and she retained the garage to perform brake work and to install the tires at her expense. These steps showed that she had assumed responsibility for the vehicle’s improvement and roadworthiness.

The court also placed weight on the parties’ own words in their electronic communications after the fire. On 24 May 2024, Couture messaged the seller and his spouse, writing that she was on her way “to go see my $8,500 burn,” language that the court treated as an admission that she regarded the RV and its associated financial stake as hers. In another exchange, when the seller’s spouse asked if she had “called the insurance,” Couture replied that she had no insurance yet and expressed that she was “really in trouble” and did not understand the situation, implicitly recognizing that she had not arranged her own coverage despite having taken on the property.

Regarding the insinuation of criminal conduct, the court noted there was no evidence tying Daigneault-Dagenais to the fire. No criminal charges were laid against him, and the court treated the arson as an unfortunate coincidence rather than a basis for civil liability. The recommendation of the garage, based on his prior satisfactory dealings with it, did not, in the court’s view, impose on him responsibility for a third-party criminal act.

Discussion of insurance and policy aspects

Although insurance was mentioned as part of the factual matrix, the decision did not involve a direct dispute over insurance coverage or the interpretation of specific policy clauses. There was no detailed analysis of policy wording, exclusions, or insuring agreements, and no insurer was a party to the proceeding. Instead, the continued existence of a policy in Daigneault-Dagenais’ name, and his preliminary contact with his insurer, were treated solely as evidentiary factors bearing on the question of ownership. The seller’s explanation that he maintained the insurance only because the registration remained in his name, coupled with his decision not to pursue an indemnity once he concluded he was no longer owner, led the court to discount the insurance status as determinative of property rights. In other words, the case treated the insurance as incidental evidence, not as a source of rights between the buyer and seller.

Outcome of the case

After assessing all the evidence, the court concluded that at the time of the fire the RV legally belonged to Couture, despite the fact that the registration and insurance were still in the seller’s name. Her full payment of the price, her active steps to transfer registration, to obtain an appraisal, to order tires, and to commission repairs, together with her own messages describing the burned asset as “my $8,500” and acknowledging that she had no insurance, collectively outweighed the residual indicia pointing toward the seller. Because ownership – and thus the risk of accidental (or criminal) loss – lay with Couture when the RV was destroyed, she was required to bear the loss herself.

In light of that determination, the court found it unnecessary to examine in detail what damages might have been recoverable had the seller remained owner, since the requisite premise for such an analysis was absent. The claim for reimbursement of the price and for additional interest, psychological harm, and exemplary damages was therefore dismissed. The successful party was the defendant, Maxime Daigneault-Dagenais, and the court ordered that the plaintiff’s action be rejected with judicial costs fixed at $230 in his favor, representing the total monetary amount awarded to the successful party.