Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope and limits of statutory warranties under the Loi sur la protection du consommateur for an older, high-mileage used vehicle, including ineligibility for the “garantie de bon fonctionnement”.
• Application of the general legal warranty of normal use (art. 38 L.p.c.) and hidden defects (art. 53 L.p.c.) to an alleged engine defect that manifested months after purchase.
• Evidentiary weight of early mechanical inspections showing no engine problem versus later diagnostics revealing severe oil loss and engine failure.
• Assessment of the buyer’s conduct and alleged negligence in continuing to drive despite ongoing loss of power and later obvious signs of serious engine problems.
• Impact of missing or divergent contract indications (conflicting warranty clauses and odometer discrepancy) where no quantified claim is made for those specific issues.
• Burden of proof on the consumer under art. 2803 C.c.Q. to demonstrate a pre-existing hidden defect and causal link to the loss, and the court’s conclusion that this burden was not met.

Facts of the dispute

Jean-Marie Dubé, a consumer residing in Rivière-du-Loup, purchased a used 2014 Ford Escape from Automobiles Collection (9375-2913 Québec inc.) on 6 July 2023. The transaction was concluded at the dealer’s place of business in Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval, and the total purchase price was $15,177.85, taxes included. The contract was structured as a long-term lease with an option to purchase through a financing entity, Location Accès Crédit. From the outset, Mr. Dubé wanted to inspect the vehicle before committing. The dealer’s representative refused, explaining that the vehicle was already in the mechanical workshop to complete an internal inspection to ensure it was in good working order. The salesperson reassured him that the vehicle was functioning well, and on the strength of these assurances, Mr. Dubé signed the contract and took delivery of the vehicle. Several anomalies emerged immediately upon possession. The air conditioning system did not work, the engine produced small jerks and a delayed response when reversing, the promised winter tires were missing, and there was a discrepancy between the odometer reading (over 152,000 km) and the mileage stated in the purchase contract (125,998 km). The dealer nevertheless reassured him: the air conditioning would be repaired at the dealer’s expense in Rivière-du-Loup, the winter tires would be shipped, and the extended warranty file would reflect the true mileage. The same day or the next, Mr. Dubé had a mechanic in Rivière-du-Loup inspect the vehicle. That mechanic confirmed that the air conditioning was defective and needed replacement but found no particular mechanical problem with the engine and noted no dashboard warning lights. This initial assessment became a central evidentiary element for the court’s appreciation of the engine’s condition at the time of sale. Over the following months, the mechanical picture changed. Around mid-August 2023, Mr. Dubé began to experience loss of power and engine jerks. He reported the problem to Automobiles Collection, which redirected him to the company that issued his extended warranty, Garantie Nationale. Despite the symptoms, he continued to use the vehicle without obtaining a prompt diagnostic or carrying out repairs. By the end of September, the loss of power had worsened. In October, the vehicle started to emit substantial white smoke, yet Mr. Dubé continued to use it at least occasionally into November 2023. Only then did he begin a series of consultations with different garages to get a clearer diagnosis of the problem. On 13 December 2023, a garage (Station-service Denis Pelletier) noted that the engine was “knocking” and found a very low oil level: 4.6 litres of oil had to be added to an engine whose total capacity was 5.7 litres. The mechanic concluded that the engine had to be replaced. On 31 January 2024, a Canadian Tire garage replaced the spark plugs and recorded an excessive oil consumption in the engine. Finally, on 2 February 2024, a third garage (Transmission Rivière-du-Loup) also concluded that the engine needed to be changed and issued an estimate of $5,748.29 for the replacement. Garantie Nationale refused coverage under the extended warranty. In a letter dated 13 March 2024, Location Accès Crédit denied any responsibility and emphasized that Garantie Nationale had refused the claim on the basis of negligence, referring specifically to the December inspection where 4.6 litres of oil were missing from a 5.7-litre engine. Mr. Dubé then brought a small claims action in the Court of Québec against Automobiles Collection, claiming a total of $11,747.80. His claim comprised the estimated cost of engine replacement, diagnostic costs from various garages, and $5,000 in moral and punitive damages, all on the basis that the vehicle allegedly suffered from hidden defects (vices cachés) affecting the engine at the time of sale.

Contractual and statutory warranty framework

The relationship between the parties is governed by a consumer contract under the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (L.p.c.). The written contract contained conflicting indications about statutory warranties. On page 1, it stated that the vehicle was covered by a one-month or 1,700-kilometre warranty under the L.p.c. On page 2, however, it purported to exclude the statutory “garantie de bon fonctionnement” (good working order warranty) provided in the L.p.c. In addition, at the time of purchase, Mr. Dubé acquired a separate extended warranty from Garantie Nationale for 36 months or 60,000 kilometres. The court analyzed the statutory framework applicable to used automobiles. Articles 159 and 160 L.p.c. establish a mandatory warranty of good working order for certain categories of used vehicles, with durations tied to age and mileage. Because this Ford Escape was nine years old and showed over 150,000 kilometres at the odometer, it fell into category D—outside the reach of the statutory good working order warranty, which extends only to vehicles up to seven years old and 120,000 kilometres. As a result, Mr. Dubé could not invoke the “garantie de bon fonctionnement” under article 159 L.p.c. Instead, he relied on the broader legal warranty that goods must be fit for normal use for a reasonable time (article 38 L.p.c.), taking into account the price, contractual stipulations and the conditions of use, and on the hidden defect regime under article 53 L.p.c., which allows a consumer to sue the merchant directly for latent defects in the goods sold, except where such defects could have been discovered by ordinary examination. The court also invoked article 2803 of the Code civil du Québec, which places the burden of proof on the party asserting a right—in this case, the consumer claiming a hidden defect and a breach of normal-use warranty.

Assessment of the alleged hidden defect and normal-use warranty

The central legal question was whether the engine suffered from a hidden defect at the time of sale, or whether the problems arose later and were aggravated by the owner’s conduct. The court emphasized several factual and evidentiary points. First, the early post-purchase inspection: the day after the sale, a mechanic inspected the vehicle and found no engine defect, identifying only the faulty air conditioning system. The absence of dashboard warning lights and the lack of any recorded engine issue at that time were viewed as strong indications that the engine was not then suffering from a serious defect. Second, the timing and evolution of symptoms: the loss of power and jerking began only in mid-August 2023, more than a month after the sale, and progressively worsened over the following months. The court noted that this timing was inconsistent with a proven, pre-existing catastrophic defect at the moment of sale, particularly for a nine-year-old, high-mileage vehicle, where gradual wear and the risk of major breakdowns are to be expected. Third, the owner’s response: even after noticing significant loss of power by mid-August and a much more pronounced problem by 20 September, Mr. Dubé continued to drive the vehicle until the end of October, when it began emitting heavy white smoke, and even thereafter used it occasionally. He did not promptly seek a precise mechanical diagnosis or undertake repairs to prevent further damage at the first signs of malfunction. Fourth, the December 2023 inspection findings: the December garage visit revealed a drastically low oil level (4.6 litres missing from a 5.7-litre capacity) and a knocking engine, leading to the conclusion that the engine should be replaced. Later garage reports (January and February 2024) confirmed excessive oil consumption and recommended engine replacement, but these assessments related to the condition months after the sale and after a period of continued driving while symptoms worsened. On this evidentiary record, the court held that Mr. Dubé had not discharged his burden of proof under article 2803 C.c.Q. to show that the engine was affected by a hidden defect at the time of sale or that the seller had breached the normal-use warranty in article 38 L.p.c. The vehicle’s age (nine years) and high mileage (over 150,000 kilometres) significantly attenuated the scope of the normal-use guarantee, given that even vehicles with up to seven years and 120,000 kilometres benefit only from a one-month or 1,700-kilometre good working order warranty under article 159 L.p.c. The court concluded instead that the main cause of the catastrophic engine failure was the owner’s own conduct in continuing to use the vehicle for at least approximately 4,000 kilometres after the onset of symptoms, without timely diagnosis and repair, and while the engine was run with critically low oil. This amounted to negligence that broke the causal chain necessary to hold the merchant liable under the L.p.c. warranties.

Unclaimed issues: air conditioning and winter tires

The judgment also addressed, in a brief but important way, other elements raised in the facts but not properly quantified in the claim. Although the air conditioning problem existed from day one and the dealer never provided the promised repair part, and although the winter tires promised with the sale were never delivered, Mr. Dubé’s formal claim did not include any specific heads of damages or cost estimates relating to the defective air conditioning system or the missing winter tires. The court noted that it is bound by the claims as pleaded: in small claims proceedings, the court cannot grant amounts that are not expressly claimed and quantified in the demand. Consequently, no compensation could be awarded under these heads, regardless of the apparent contractual shortcomings.

Outcome and implications

In the result, the Court of Québec (Small Claims Division), presided over by Justice François Bérubé, dismissed the action in its entirety. Despite the dealer’s absence at the hearing and the consumer-protection orientation of the L.p.c., the court found that the evidence did not establish a hidden defect or breach of the reasonable-duration normal-use warranty at the time of sale, and that the consumer’s own prolonged use of the vehicle in the face of escalating engine symptoms and critical oil shortage was the principal cause of the engine’s total loss. The successful party in this case is therefore the defendant, 9375-2913 Québec inc. (Automobiles Collection), and the court rejected all of Mr. Dubé’s monetary claims, awarding no damages or costs. The total monetary amount ordered in favour of the successful party is $0, as the court dismissed the claim “without costs” due to the defendant’s absence at the hearing.