Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicability of the Loi sur la protection du consommateur’s legal warranty of quality and normal use duration to a used vehicle that no longer meets the statutory “garantie de bon fonctionnement” criteria.
• Characterisation of the engine failure as a serious deficit of use (vice caché) existing at the time of sale, despite expiry of the conventional and statutory short-term warranties.
• Assessment of the consumer’s reasonable expectations for the useful life and mileage of a high-value commercial van sold used by a professional dealer.
• Weight given to the dealer’s own testimony on the usual life expectancy of the engine to establish premature and abnormal failure after only 3,475 km of use by the buyer.
• Determination of the appropriate quantum of damages based on restoring the buyer to his pre-defect position, while avoiding a betterment resulting from installing a rebuilt “like-new” engine.
• Treatment of a pre-trial real offer and judicial consignment of $5,000 as valid partial payment, and its interaction with the Court’s award of $4,900 plus interest and costs.

Facts of the case

François Maltais purchased a used Ram Promaster 2500 High from Olivier Kamouraska Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram inc. on 27 February 2024. At the time of sale, the odometer indicated 119,371 kilometres. The vehicle, whose new value was approximately $70,000, was acquired for $44,265 as a used commercial van. The purchase contract specified that the vehicle no longer benefited from the statutory one-month / 1,700-kilometre “garantie de bon fonctionnement” under the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (L.p.c.) and that the manufacturer’s conventional warranty had expired, as it was limited to five years or 100,000 kilometres. Maltais also declined the option of purchasing any extended warranty. After the sale, the dealer performed certain repairs and additions, and Maltais only took physical possession of the vehicle on 17 April 2024. He then spent roughly two months converting the rear cabin to use the van as a recreational vehicle. On 17 August 2024, while on a trip to Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, the engine failed catastrophically, emitting smoke and leaving the van inoperable. The vehicle had travelled only 3,475 kilometres in Maltais’s hands since the purchase. The van had to be towed to the dealer. After inspection, the dealer informed Maltais that the engine had to be replaced. By that point, the odometer showed 122,877 kilometres, meaning the failure occurred after relatively low additional mileage, given the nature and class of the vehicle.

Legal framework and warranties at issue

The first issue was whether Maltais could rely on the specific “garantie de bon fonctionnement” created by articles 159 and 160 L.p.c. for used vehicles. This warranty applies only to vehicles that, at the time of sale, are five years old or less and have no more than 80,000 kilometres. Because this van exceeded both limits (more than five years in service and more than 80,000 kilometres at sale), the Court held that Maltais could not invoke that particular statutory warranty. However, the expiry or inapplicability of those short-term warranties did not end the analysis. The Court turned to the broader legal warranties set out in articles 37, 38 and 53 L.p.c. and the Civil Code of Québec, particularly articles 1726, 1729 and 1739 C.c.Q. Articles 37 and 38 L.p.c. impose a legal obligation that the good be fit for its normal purpose and that it be capable of normal use for a reasonable period, given its price, contractual terms and conditions of use. Article 53 L.p.c. allows the consumer to sue the merchant or manufacturer directly for a latent defect, even if the defect was unknown to them, provided it was not detectable by ordinary examination. In parallel, article 1726 C.c.Q. codifies the seller’s obligation to warrant against latent defects that render the property unfit for its intended use or that significantly reduce its usefulness to the point that the buyer would not have bought it, or would have paid less, had the defect been known. Article 1729 C.c.Q. further presumes, in sales by professional sellers, that a defect existed at the time of sale when malfunction or deterioration occurs prematurely relative to comparable goods, unless the seller proves misuse by the buyer. The Court also recalled that appellate authority treats the L.p.c. legal warranties in articles 37 and 38 as a particular application of the latent defect regime. In practice, this means the buyer must show: that the defect was unknown to them, that it was hidden, that it was serious, and that it existed at the time of sale. In addition, under article 38 L.p.c., the consumer must demonstrate that the good failed to provide normal use for a reasonable time, having regard to the price, contractual clauses and usage conditions. Importantly, the Court noted that the evidential presumptions in the L.p.c. significantly ease the consumer’s burden: once there is serious deficit of use and the consumer’s ignorance of it at sale is established, the law presumes the prior and hidden nature of the defect in a transaction with a professional seller.

Evidence regarding the engine failure and reasonable expectations

The parties’ evidence centred on the engine’s expected durability and the circumstances of the failure. The dealer’s own representatives gave key testimony. The sales director said it was “very rare” for a motor of this type to fail after only around 120,000 kilometres. He described it as an “excellent” engine and, according to several American firms, one of the best in its category over many years. The fixed operations director testified that, when properly maintained, this engine typically has a useful life of at least 250,000 to 300,000 kilometres. Against this backdrop, the engine’s catastrophic failure at 122,877 kilometres—after only 3,475 kilometres of post-sale use by Maltais—struck the Court as abnormally premature. The Court concluded that Maltais had proved a serious deficit of use that he could not have known about at the time of purchase. In assessing the “reasonable duration” of normal use under article 38 L.p.c., the Court placed particular weight on the vehicle’s high original price, the substantial used purchase price, the nature and intended use of the van, the technical evidence and the expectations a reasonable consumer would have. For a used but still relatively modern commercial van of this type, the Court found that a buyer is entitled to expect significantly more than 122,877 kilometres of engine life before a full engine replacement is necessary. Consequently, the judge held that Maltais was entitled to rely on the legal warranties in articles 37 and 38 L.p.c. and the associated latent defect regime.

Dispute over remedies and quantum of damages

The second major issue was the appropriate measure of damages given the engine’s state and the buyer’s choices in repair. After the failure, Maltais had the vehicle repaired at the dealer. Olivier Kamouraska offered to install a used engine with approximately the same mileage and characteristics as the failed engine. The cost of acquiring and installing such an equivalent used engine was $4,900, taxes included. Maltais declined this option and instead chose a rebuilt “reconditioned to new” engine. The gross cost of that engine, including installation and taxes, was $16,100. Through negotiation, the dealer reduced this figure, and Maltais ultimately paid $11,669.23. He then sued in small claims to recover that full amount, arguing that the dealer should bear the cost of rendering the vehicle mechanically sound. The Court analysed this request using article 272(c) L.p.c., which permits the consumer, in the face of a defect, to seek a reduction of their obligations—commonly implemented by awarding the cost of necessary repairs. The guiding principle is indemnification: the remedy must place the buyer as nearly as possible in the position they would have occupied absent the defect, but without conferring an unwarranted advantage or windfall. Here, at the time of sale, the engine already had 119,371 kilometres and was no longer protected by any manufacturer’s warranty. By paying for a rebuilt “like-new” engine with a fresh three-year or 60,000-kilometre warranty, Maltais ended up with something better than what he had originally purchased: a substantial upgrade over a high-mileage, out-of-warranty engine. For that reason, the Court rejected his claim for the full $11,669.23 as legally excessive. Instead, the judge looked to the lesser repair option as the correct benchmark for restoring the status quo ante. The cost of installing an equivalent used engine—$4,900, taxes included—represented the amount required to place Maltais in a position comparable to that existing at the time of sale, but with the defect corrected. The Court therefore fixed his recoverable damages at that level.

Effect of the real offer and judicial consignment

A further procedural element influenced the financial disposition. On 1 October 2025, ahead of trial, the dealer filed an offer réelle (real offer) and consigned $5,000 with the Court, asserting that this amount was sufficient to cover the reasonable cost of engine replacement. Maltais refused the offer. The Court noted that this consigned sum slightly exceeded the $4,900 cost of the equivalent used engine and thus approximated the actual damages and cost to remediate the defect. In the judgment, the Court declared the real offer and consignment of $5,000 valid as a partial payment as of 6 October 2025, the date of the judicial deposit. It further authorised Maltais to withdraw that consigned amount. This mechanism allowed the Court to reconcile the pre-trial offer with its ultimate assessment of the proper damages, while preserving interest calculations and the legal effect of the offer under the Civil Code provisions on real offers and consignation.

Ruling and overall outcome

In its dispositive section, the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, allowed Maltais’s action and held that he was entitled to the protection of the legal warranty of quality and normal use under articles 37 and 38 L.p.c., despite the inapplicability of the specific “garantie de bon fonctionnement” and the expiration of manufacturer warranty. The Court condemned Olivier Kamouraska Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram inc. to pay Maltais $4,900, corresponding to the cost of an equivalent used replacement engine, together with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from the date of formal notice (1 November 2024) until the date of the judicial deposit of the real offer (6 October 2025), plus court costs, although the precise dollar amount of interest and costs is not specified in the text. It also declared the pre-trial real offer and consigned sum of $5,000 valid as partial payment and authorised Maltais to withdraw that amount. Overall, the successful party is the plaintiff, François Maltais, who obtains judgment in his favour with a principal award of $4,900 plus interest, additional indemnity and judicial costs, and the benefit of withdrawing the $5,000 already consigned on his behalf, while the exact total of interest and costs cannot be determined from the decision.