Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff sought damages against both defendants for an alleged latent defect in a used vehicle.
   
• Justice Marengo found no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and Muradi Lytvynov personally, since the sale contract named only Auto Bazar inc.
   
• Failing to have the vehicle inspected before purchase undermined the plaintiff's claim to have acted as a prudent and diligent buyer.
   
• No formal notice (mise en demeure) was sent to the defendant before repairs were carried out, contrary to the requirements of the Civil Code of Québec.
   
• Absent testimony or proof of payment supporting the repair invoice, the evidentiary record fell short.
   
• Ultimately, the court dismissed the claim for lack of preponderant evidence of a latent defect, without legal costs.
   

Facts of the case

Nazarii Pakholiuk purchased a used 2015 Ford Fusion from Auto Bazar inc. on November 10, 2024. At the time of sale, the vehicle was nearly ten years old and had 261,000 km on the odometer, as confirmed by a SAAQ transaction certificate. Pakholiuk later sued both Auto Bazar inc. and Muradi Lytvynov for damages, alleging a latent defect in the vehicle. He relied on an invoice from Chartrand Ford documenting repairs he claimed were necessitated by the defect.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The court applied several provisions of the Civil Code of Québec. Articles 1590 and following require a purchaser to put a seller on formal notice (mise en demeure) before undertaking remedial repairs and seeking reimbursement. In connection with the plaintiff's failure to meet his burden of proof, the court also cited articles 2803 and 2804 C.C.Q., article 1726 C.C.Q., and article 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, RLRQ c. P-40.1.

Reasoning and analysis

The court first addressed the claim against Lytvynov personally, finding no legal relationship between him and the plaintiff, since the sale contract (exhibit D-1) was entered into with Auto Bazar inc. alone. Turning to the claim against Auto Bazar inc., the court noted that the plaintiff had not had the vehicle inspected by an expert before purchase, which fell short of the conduct expected of a prudent and diligent buyer given the vehicle's age and mileage. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to put Auto Bazar inc. on formal notice before proceeding with the repairs invoiced by Chartrand Ford, a step required under articles 1590 and following of the Civil Code of Québec. Compounding this, no testimony was offered to support the repair invoice, and no proof of payment of the claimed amount was presented. Without an expert assessment, the court held that the plaintiff had not discharged his burden of proving the existence of the alleged latent defect under articles 2803, 2804, and 1726 C.C.Q., and article 38 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Ruling and overall outcome

Given the absence of preponderant evidence establishing a latent defect and the plaintiff's failure to provide prior formal notice, the court dismissed the claim in its entirety. Both Auto Bazar inc. and Muradi Lytvynov were successful, with no monetary award, damages, or costs granted to the plaintiff. The dismissal was ordered without legal costs.