Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central dispute concerned whether a verbal pre-order agreement for a 2021 Volkswagen ID.4 at a fixed price created an enforceable obligation despite subsequent non-production of that model.
• Evidence showed that the 2021 vehicle was never manufactured due to a global microchip and COVID-19 crisis, raising causation and fault issues beyond the dealer’s control.
• The dealership relied on an unsigned order form providing that any manufacturer price increase would be passed on to the buyer, undermining the plaintiff’s claim to a fixed 2021 price for later model years.
• Differences in model years (2021 vs. 2023–2024) and their features, equipment and production origin were key factual elements affecting price comparability and alleged “equivalent” vehicles.
• The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the civil burden of proof under articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q. regarding fault, damages, and causal link.
• Consumer protection legislation was deemed inapplicable, limiting the plaintiff strictly to general civil law remedies in contract and damages.

Facts of the case

The dispute arose from an alleged verbal agreement for the purchase of a 2021 Volkswagen ID.4 between the plaintiff, Angelo Sudano, and the dealership, Prestige Gabriel Marcel Laurin S.E.C. According to Sudano, on or about 23 December 2021 he agreed with Prestige to buy a 2021 Volkswagen ID.4 at a price of $60,666.56 and he paid a $500 amount at the outset as a deposit. He asserted that this understanding amounted to a binding pre-order sale arrangement for that particular model year and price.
Despite this understanding, the vehicle was never delivered. Sudano maintained that the specific 2021 ID.4 he ordered was never produced or made available, despite numerous discussions between the parties over the following years about possible replacement vehicles. In his claim before the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, he sought $11,684, which he characterized as “the price difference between my pre-order sales contract agreement and the last quoted dealer price for what they claim is an equivalent model to my pre-order.” His position was that later offers from Prestige involved materially higher prices than the initial 2021 arrangement and that the dealership should bear this price gap.
Prestige did not deny that Sudano had come in on 23 December 2021 to place an order for a 2021 Volkswagen ID.4. However, the dealership explained that the vehicle could not be built at all by Volkswagen due to the global microprocessor shortage and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The dealer argued that non-production of the vehicle was entirely outside its control and stemmed from a broader manufacturer-level and supply-chain crisis. In this context, Prestige contacted the plaintiff to advise him of the situation and to discuss alternatives.
The dealership informed Sudano that other ID.4 models would be available, particularly from the 2023 model year, and that production had shifted from Germany to Tennessee in the United States. This transition, combined with the ongoing global crisis, meant that there would be delays and that the product offering would differ from what had been initially envisaged. Prestigious representatives asserted that Sudano expressed interest in acquiring a 2023 ID.4 but, when told that a 2024 model would soon be available with additional accessories, he decided to wait for the newer model year instead of proceeding with the 2023 option.
A central point in the evidentiary narrative was that the dealership highlighted significant differences between the 2021 and 2023 versions of the ID.4. These differences involved options, manufacturing elements, a more powerful engine and other features, all of which logically influenced the purchase price. This was reinforced by documentary evidence describing the specifications of the later models. The plaintiff himself admitted that there were differences between the model years but still expressed interest in a 2024 model, apparently in the hope of obtaining that newer configuration at a price derived from the 2021 verbal understanding.

Contractual framework and relevant terms

The lawsuit rested, in part, on an unsigned order form or draft agreement which the court treated as reflecting the terms of the parties’ pre-order understanding. Prestige relied heavily on a particular clause contained in this document. That clause stipulated that any price increase imposed by the automobile manufacturer would necessarily be passed on to the buyer, thereby triggering an adjustment of the originally quoted price. In practical terms, this provision made it clear that the buyer would have to absorb any manufacturer-driven price increases rather than locking in a final fixed price at the pre-order stage.
The dealership argued that this clause was directly relevant to Sudano’s complaint. Not only had the specific 2021 vehicle never been produced, but the later vehicles discussed were different models (2023 and potentially 2024) with different equipment, options and production origins. For Prestige, this meant that both the contractual price-adjustment mechanism and the change in the subject matter (a different model year vehicle with different specifications) rendered it unreasonable to insist on the original 2021 price for a 2023 or 2024 model. The dealership also stressed that the purchase contract had never been formally signed and that Sudano retained the right at all times to refuse any offered vehicle prior to signing a definitive sales agreement. On that basis, Prestige contended that there was no breach of a finalized, enforceable contract on its part.

Procedure and positions of the parties

In May 2024, Sudano sent a formal demand letter in which he claimed that the various vehicles offered by Prestige—culminating in a June 2023 proposal for a vehicle priced at $73,960—were significantly more expensive than what he said was the original verbal agreement price of $60,666.56. On this basis he quantified his loss at $11,684 and commenced proceedings in the Small Claims Division. He framed his damages as the difference between the agreed pre-order price and the later price quoted for what he considered to be an equivalent model.
Prestige contested the claim, maintaining that any price increases for vehicles of later model years were attributable to the manufacturer and the changed specifications, not to any wrongful conduct by the dealer. It emphasized that the plaintiff was aware of the differences between the model years, the supply constraints, and the fact that any manufacturer price increase would be borne by the purchaser. Further, Prestige submitted that Sudano had, in effect, declined the vehicles that were actually available in later years by opting to wait for an even newer model.
Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. was brought in as a defendant in warranty (a third party) by Prestige. At the hearing, a Volkswagen representative, Costa Bardaklis, supported the dealer’s version of events, confirming the production and supply issues that had prevented the 2021 vehicle from being built and the subsequent transition to later model years.

Legal analysis

The court began with the general rules on burden of proof under the Civil Code of Québec. Article 2803 provides that a person who wishes to assert a right must prove the facts supporting that claim, and that a person alleging that a right is null, modified or extinguished must likewise prove the foundational facts. Article 2804 states that proof is sufficient where it makes the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. Applied to this case, these provisions meant that Sudano, as plaintiff, had to establish on a balance of probabilities the existence of a fault by Prestige, the damages suffered, and the causal link between the alleged fault and those damages.
The judge reiterated that in any action for damages the claimant must demonstrate three core elements: fault, damage, and causation. In this matter, the plaintiff was required to prove that Prestige had breached its obligations under the pre-order arrangement or acted wrongfully in order to claim compensation for the alleged price difference. Simply pointing to the non-delivery of the original 2021 vehicle or the higher prices of later models was insufficient without showing that the dealer’s conduct was at fault and that such fault directly caused the loss claimed.
The court accepted Prestige’s explanation that the 2021 ID.4 could not be manufactured because of external, global circumstances involving microprocessors and the COVID-19 crisis. These were circumstances outside the dealer’s control, linked to the manufacturer’s production capabilities rather than any deliberate or negligent act by Prestige. Moreover, the evidence showed that alternative vehicles of later model years were discussed, that there were material differences between these vehicles and the original 2021 version, and that the plaintiff had been informed that price variations could result from these differences and from manufacturer pricing decisions.

Policy and consumer protection considerations

Sudano sought to characterize the dispute in part as a consumer matter. However, the court expressly held that the Québec Consumer Protection Act did not apply in this case. The judge stated that the consumer protection legislation “n’a aucune application en la présente instance,” thereby narrowing the applicable legal framework to general civil law principles of contract and responsibility. This finding removed the possibility of relying on specific statutory consumer protections that might otherwise have altered the allocation of risks or the evidentiary burdens between the parties.
Without the Consumer Protection Act, the plaintiff’s rights depended entirely on the civil law of obligations and the contractual terms discussed earlier. The unsigned order form with its clause transferring manufacturer price increases to the buyer, together with the absence of a signed, final sale contract and the plaintiff’s ongoing ability to refuse the later vehicles, weighed against a finding that Prestige had breached a binding, fixed-price obligation. The court also noted that the vehicles ultimately offered were not identical to the originally contemplated 2021 vehicle, further undermining any claim that the dealership was obliged to deliver a later model at the earlier price.

Outcome and monetary consequences

After reviewing the evidence and the arguments, the Court of Québec concluded that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of proof under articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q. The judge found that the plaintiff had not established fault on the part of Prestige, nor a compensable loss directly attributable to any wrongful conduct by the dealership or by Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. In light of this, the court dismissed the claim in its entirety.
The judgment therefore rejected the plaintiff’s action against Prestige as well as the forced intervention against Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. The court ordered that costs in the amount of $230, representing the judicial stamp, be borne by the plaintiff. As a result, the successful parties in the litigation were Prestige Gabriel Marcel Laurin S.E.C. and Volkswagen Group Canada Inc., and the total amount ordered in their favor consisted of $230 in costs, with no damages of any kind awarded to the plaintiff.