Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Characterization of the repair agreement as a fixed-price contract for services (contrat à forfait) and the binding nature of the agreed lump-sum price of 3 960,32 $.
• Legality of Hyundai’s attempt to charge an increased amount of 7 161,59 $ despite a prior fixed-price estimate and without a new agreement from the client.
• Alleged breach of the duty to inform regarding the time required to complete engine repairs, including the discrepancy between a promised 3–4 days and an actual 39-day delay.
• Causation and proof of damages, distinguishing between non-recoverable lost income as an Uber driver and compensable loss of use, trouble and inconvenience.
• Impact of the absence and timing of a valid formal notice on the recoverability of vehicle rental expenses as contractual damages.
• Rejection of Hyundai’s counterclaim for the repair bill due to its failure to perform the mandate diligently and in accordance with the contract and its legal obligations.

Facts of the dispute

Mamadou Saidou Diallo entrusted his vehicle to Hyundai Saint-Laurent for engine repairs on 7 November 2022. The repair work was required in the context of a major recall affecting 178 064 vehicles for a motor defect that could cause a loss of power. Hyundai acknowledged this recall context and indicated that delays were possible given the volume of affected vehicles. Despite that, according to Mr. Diallo’s credible and convincing testimony, the dealership committed to completing the work within three to four days. In reality, the repairs took 39 days. This prolonged delay left Mr. Diallo without the use of his vehicle for a substantial period. To mitigate the impact, he rented a vehicle during the repair period and later claimed the associated rental costs as damages. He was also working as an Uber driver and alleged he lost income because he could not use his vehicle for ride-sharing work. The parties had signed what the court characterizes as a contract for services at a fixed price (contrat de service à forfait). The written estimate (piece P-7) indicated a price of 3 960,32 $ for the repair work. After the work was done, however, Hyundai produced a higher figure: it attempted to claim 7 161,59 $ (piece D-3), far above the initial estimate. A later invoice in the record showed a lower amount, 3 396,59 $ (piece P-11), which added to the confusion from the customer’s perspective. Mr. Diallo did not pay any of these repair invoices and instead pursued his legal remedies.

Procedural history in small claims

In December 2023, Mr. Diallo filed a claim in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec for 15 000 $ in damages, alleging contractual fault on Hyundai’s part. His initial damage claim comprised two main heads: 6 152,04 $ for the cost of renting a vehicle during the repair period (piece P-4), and 9 750 $ for 39 days of lost income as an Uber driver (at 250 $ per day) between 15 August and 22 September (pieces P-3 and P-12). Because small claims jurisdiction is capped at 15 000 $, he expressly indicated that he was reducing his total claim to that limit. At the judge’s request, he then re-apportioned the figures to 5 250 $ for vehicle rental and 9 750 $ for lost income, still totalling 15 000 $. The claim was served on Hyundai on 9 January 2024 and received by an employee, Ms. Maha. Hyundai did not file any defence or contestation. As a result, on 3 December 2024, the court rendered a default judgment against Hyundai for 15 000 $, together with interest and the usual additional indemnity from 9 January 2024, plus 223 $ in court costs. Mr. Diallo began enforcement proceedings. On 20 December 2024 he instructed a bailiff, and an execution process was initiated against Hyundai’s movable property. Hyundai reacted by opposing the seizure and, on 14 January 2025, filing an application to have the default judgment set aside (pourvoi en rétractation de jugement). Hyundai alleged that it had transmitted the claim on 9 January 2024 to the legal department of the Corporation des concessionnaires automobiles du Québec (CCAQ) and had been misled by CCAQ, and that it only became aware of the default judgment on 6 January 2025 when the bailiff served notice of execution. Hyundai also claimed that it had serious substantive defences to assert. On 17 January 2025, Justice David Peche suspended execution of the default judgment and instructed the clerk to convene the parties so that the court could rule both on the application for retraction and on the merits of the dispute. At that stage Hyundai indicated its intention to pursue a counterclaim (demande reconventionnelle) for 7 161,59 $ (piece D-3) corresponding to the repair bill it claimed was owing, undertaking to file the formal counterclaim by 24 October 2025. The court noted that because Mr. Diallo already knew the amount claimed, this future filing would not prevent the setting of a trial date. Ultimately, at a later hearing on the merits, the presiding judge, Eliana Marengo J.C.Q., granted the retraction of the default judgment and proceeded to decide the case on the substance.

Legal framework and contractual characterization

The court first established that the relationship between the parties was governed by a contract for services concluded on 7 November 2022 (piece P-7). It further classified this as a contract at a fixed price (contrat à forfait) under article 2106 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.c.Q.). As a result, article 2109 C.c.Q. applied: in a fixed-price contract, the client must pay the agreed price and cannot demand a reduction because the work turned out to be easier or cheaper than predicted, and conversely the contractor cannot claim an increase in price simply because the work required more effort or cost more than expected, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. On this basis, the court held that the agreed price for the repairs was 3 960,32 $ and that Hyundai could not unilaterally increase it to 7 161,59 $. Mr. Diallo was therefore not required to pay the additional amount claimed on the higher invoice (piece D-3). The court also invoked article 2102 C.c.Q., which obliges an entrepreneur or service provider, before concluding the contract and where circumstances permit, to provide the client with useful information about the nature of the task, and the goods and time required to perform it. In the judge’s view, Hyundai failed this duty of information when it did not properly inform Mr. Diallo of the realistic time needed for the repairs in the recall context.

Breach of duty of diligence and fault

Relying on testimony from Mr. Diallo and from Hyundai witnesses René Racine, Mario Totaro and André Lapres, as well as documentary exhibits P-1 to P-12 and D-1 to D-10, the court examined whether Hyundai had acted in accordance with its legal and contractual obligations. Article 2100 C.c.Q. requires contractors and service providers to act in the best interests of their client, with prudence and diligence, and in line with the customs and rules of their art, ensuring that the work or service is in conformity with the contract. Where they are bound to deliver a specific result, they can only escape liability by proving force majeure. The court found that Hyundai had not acted in the customer’s best interests, nor with the required prudence and diligence, and had not respected the terms of the contract. The core findings of fault were that: (1) Hyundai committed itself, via its representative, to completing the repairs within three to four days; (2) it in fact took 39 days; and (3) it did not properly warn or inform Mr. Diallo about the realistic duration and implications of the recall-driven delays. The judge expressly considered Mr. Diallo’s testimony “franc, crédible et convaincant” on the promised timeframe. Applying articles 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q., which govern the burden of proof and standard of proof (balance of probabilities), the court concluded that Mr. Diallo had established contractual fault by Hyundai.

Assessment of damages and limits on recoverability

The next issue was whether the claimed damages were compensable, and if so to what extent. The court accepted that Mr. Diallo had suffered damages as a direct and immediate consequence of Hyundai’s contractual faults, both in terms of price and delay. However, it rigorously applied the Civil Code rules on remoteness and foreseeability of damages. Under articles 1607 and 1613 C.c.Q., only damages that are immediate, direct and foreseeable at the time of the contract are recoverable. On that test, the claimed loss of income of 9 750 $ for 39 days of missed Uber driving was found not to constitute immediate, direct and foreseeable damages in this contractual context. In other words, although Mr. Diallo subjectively experienced that loss, the court considered it too remote from the breach to be compensable as contractual damages. Hyundai was not made liable for that portion of the claim. The situation was more nuanced for the vehicle rental costs. The court acknowledged that rental expenses for a substitute vehicle can in principle qualify as direct and foreseeable mitigation damages when a car is unavailable due to repair delays. Mr. Diallo claimed 6 350 $ in Hertz rental expenses for the period from 19 October 2022 to 23 November 2022 (piece P-4, in bundle). However, the only mise en demeure (formal notice) sent to Hyundai was dated 9 June 2023 (piece P-1), long after the rental period. By applying article 1595 C.c.Q. and referring to the case Pépin v. Diamond, the court held that because Hyundai had not been formally put in default at the relevant time, Mr. Diallo could not recover those rental costs as damages. The absence and timing of a proper formal notice were thus decisive in rejecting the claim for reimbursement of the rental expenses, despite their apparent connection to the delay.

Compensation for trouble, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment

Although it disallowed both the lost-income claim and the rental-cost reimbursement, the court did not leave Mr. Diallo without redress. Relying particularly on article 1591 C.c.Q., it found that he had endured significant “troubles et inconvénients,” including an unreasonable loss of use of his vehicle. The court characterized the length of time during which he was deprived of his vehicle and the attendant inconvenience as “dommages importants et substantiels.” Using its discretionary power to quantify such non-pecuniary impacts, the court set compensation at 7 500 $. This lump-sum award was intended to reflect the seriousness and duration of the inconvenience and the loss of enjoyment of the vehicle, rather than to reimburse itemized financial heads such as lost income or car rental receipts.

Outcome of the main claim and Hyundai’s counterclaim

On the contractual price issue, the court confirmed that the only binding repair price was the original fixed estimate of 3 960,32 $, and that Hyundai had no right to unilaterally increase the amount billed without a new agreement. Because Hyundai had not properly executed its mandate and had not respected the contractual and statutory duties imposed by articles 2100 and following C.c.Q., its counterclaim for 7 161,59 $ was rejected in its entirety. The judge therefore allowed Mr. Diallo’s principal claim in part and dismissed Hyundai’s reconventional demand completely.

Final ruling and monetary consequences

The Court of Québec (Small Claims Division), per Justice Eliana Marengo, rendered judgment granting partial recovery to the plaintiff and denying Hyundai’s monetary claim. The court ordered Hyundai Saint-Laurent to pay Mamadou Saidou Diallo 7 500 $ in damages for the trouble, inconvenience and unreasonable deprivation of his vehicle, together with legal interest at the statutory rate and the additional indemnity under article 1619 C.c.Q. from 9 June 2023, as well as all court costs, including those incurred for the seizure-execution of the earlier default judgment of 3 December 2024. The exact total of interest and costs is not set out numerically in the judgment and therefore cannot be precisely quantified from the text alone, but the base amount clearly awarded in favour of the successful party, Mr. Diallo, is 7 500 $ plus interest, the additional indemnity and all recoverable judicial costs.