Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Adrien Tremblay sued LG Electronics Canada Inc. and BR Services Électroménagers after his refrigerator failed roughly three years after purchase.
   
• LG did not respond to the claim and was proceeded against by default.
   
• BR Services denied any fault and filed a cross-demand seeking damages from Tremblay for having been sued.
   
• Quebec's legal warranty of durability under the Consumer Protection Act was central to establishing LG's liability as manufacturer.
   
• Tremblay's claim for food-loss and inconvenience damages lacked supporting documentation.
   
• The court had to assess whether a ten-day delay in repairing the refrigerator amounted to fault by BR Services.
   

Facts of the case

Adrien Tremblay purchased an LG refrigerator on July 12, 2021 for $845. The refrigerator stopped working on or around August 20, 2024, prompting Tremblay to contact BR Services Électroménagers, the company that had previously serviced the appliance. On August 30, 2024, a BR Services technician replaced the compressor and issued an invoice of $412.76. Tremblay paid this amount directly to LG, which in turn reimbursed BR Services. On October 16, 2024, Tremblay filed a claim seeking $412 for the compressor replacement and $500 in additional damages, for a total claim of $912 against both LG and BR Services. LG did not respond to the claim and the matter proceeded against it by default. BR Services contested the claim and filed a cross-demand seeking $240 from Tremblay for the time its director, Pierre-Luc Laflamme, spent addressing the litigation.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The case turned on section 38 of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, which imposes a legal warranty of durability on goods sold to consumers. Because the refrigerator failed after only three years, the court found this breached the durability standard the statute imposes on manufacturers. The additional indemnity provided under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec was also applied to the sum awarded to Tremblay, running from the date of formal notice.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found the uncontested evidence established that a refrigerator failing within three years of purchase is not normal and breaches the legal warranty of durability binding LG as manufacturer. On that basis, Tremblay was entitled to reimbursement of the $412 he paid for the compressor replacement. As for the additional $500 claimed for lost food and the inconvenience of being without a refrigerator, the court noted Tremblay provided no details about the food lost and no receipts for either the food or the restaurant meals he said he incurred. Even so, the court awarded $100 in damages for the trouble and inconvenience caused by the loss of use of the appliance. Turning to BR Services, the court noted the compressor replacement had resolved the mechanical problem, and that Tremblay's real grievance was the ten-day gap between his service call and the repair. The evidence showed Tremblay had been told the only refrigeration technician was on vacation and had agreed to wait, without seeking out another repair company. Finding no evidence of fault on BR Services' part, the court dismissed the claim against it. On the cross-demand, the court held that time spent by a party defending litigation is a normal hazard of legal proceedings and is not, absent rare exceptions, compensable as direct damage. It further noted that Tremblay's claim against BR Services, while ultimately unsuccessful, was not frivolous or vexatious on its face, since it took a full hearing of the conflicting evidence to establish that BR Services was not at fault.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court partially granted Tremblay's claim against LG, ordering it to pay him $512 with legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, running from August 30, 2024. LG was further ordered to pay $115 in court filing costs. The claim against BR Services was dismissed in its entirety, as was BR Services' cross-demand against Tremblay, with no costs awarded on either of those points. Tremblay was thus the successful party against LG, while BR Services successfully defended itself and defeated the cross-demand it had brought.