Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Manon Blanchet sought reimbursement of $4,915 in financing payments for a used vehicle she alleged had major defects.
   
• Auto Shelby denied the claim, pointing to the vehicle's high mileage and the lack of proof of latent defects.
   
• It also raised a verbal counterclaim for $7,546.29, a sum it had already paid under a default judgment later retracted.
   
• Categorization of the vehicle under section 160 of the Consumer Protection Act determined which statutory warranties applied.
   
• Evidence of Blanchet's continued and intensive use of the vehicle undermined her claim of a serious defect in use.
   
• No invoices were submitted to support the claimed repair costs, weakening the evidentiary basis for her position.
   

Facts of the case

On March 12, 2020, Manon Blanchet purchased a 2011 Nissan Murano from Auto Shelby, showing 164,533 kilometres on the odometer, for $8,450, financed over 54 months. Shortly after taking possession, she encountered several issues: a fuel door that was difficult to open, a defective rear seatbelt, and a sunroof that would not close after first use. She reported these problems to the seller, leading to months of email exchanges. Auto Shelby stated that it repaired these initial issues in April 2020, despite pandemic-related operational constraints. Blanchet maintained that problems persisted and that new ones emerged, including a "check engine" light and fluid leaking beneath the vehicle. Notwithstanding these complaints, she kept the vehicle for over four years, until the end of her financing term in September 2024. Odometer records showed she drove approximately 27,000 kilometres in the first nine months after purchase, with the vehicle reaching 192,000 kilometres by January 2021. She eventually gave the vehicle to a friend, claiming at the hearing that it was no longer functional, though she provided no evidence of its residual value or the actual repair costs she said she incurred.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Because the vehicle had travelled more than 120,000 kilometres at the time of sale, it fell into category D under section 160 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), meaning it carried no warranty of proper functioning under section 159. Instead, the warranty of quality against latent defects and the warranty of normal use, found in sections 37 and 38 CPA, applied — though these had to be weighed against the vehicle's age, price, and mileage. Blanchet also bore the burden of proof under articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec, requiring her to establish a serious, hidden defect that existed before the sale and was unknown to her at the time.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found that deterioration from normal wear and aging does not amount to a defect, since expectations for a high-mileage vehicle must be adjusted accordingly; buyers of such vehicles should anticipate frequent maintenance needs. Blanchet's own conduct undercut her position: driving 27,000 kilometres within a year and retaining the vehicle for four years demonstrated that it had served its transportation purpose for a reasonable period given its category. She failed to produce any invoices for the $5,000 in repairs she claimed to have paid. While she submitted a Canadian Tire inspection report noting maintenance needs, this did not establish that a serious latent defect existed at the time of sale. Later issues involving the steering rack or engine were attributed to normal wear on a vehicle nearing 200,000 kilometres rather than a pre-existing defect. As a result, the court concluded that Blanchet had not shown the vehicle failed to have a normal useful life for its category.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed Blanchet's claim for reimbursement, finding she had not proven a latent defect or premature failure of the vehicle. On the counterclaim, the court had earlier retracted the June 20, 2021 default judgment against Auto Shelby due to improper service and confusion over the contracting entity, and Auto Shelby had shown it paid $7,546.29 to a bailiff to satisfy that now-annulled judgment. Since Blanchet's principal claim failed and she acknowledged receiving those funds, Auto Shelby succeeded on its counterclaim. The court ordered Manon Blanchet to pay Auto Shelby $7,546.29, plus legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec from the thirtieth day after the judgment's signing, along with $158 in contestation costs.