Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dealership admitted that its June 2023 brake line repair was defective and gave way, leaving Ms. Ellemberg with no braking capacity on a highway.
   
• Treating the repair as a contract for services under article 2100 of the Civil Code of Québec, the court found the dealership breached its duty of prudence and diligence and, applying case law on vehicle repairs, its obligation of result.
   
• Ms. Ellemberg's $16,605.14 lost-wage claim failed because she proved none of the three required elements of fault, prejudice and causation.
   
• What appeared to be screenshots of employer deposits into her bank account had weak relevance and probative value, revealing no pay rate, hours worked or work stoppage.
   
• Her obligation to minimize her damages under article 1479 required her to try alternative transportation, such as renting a vehicle, for the period without a courtesy car.
   
• Relying on two precedents involving braking-related vehicle defects, the court awarded the full $3,394.86 claimed in moral damages.
   

Facts of the case

In May 2023, Nancy Ellemberg brought her car to 9058-3287 Québec inc., which operates a car dealership under the name Hyundai Valleyfield. The repair was to a brake line and was required under a manufacturer's safety recall. A delay in the availability of the required parts prolonged the vehicle's stay at the dealership's garage. From May 13, after Ms. Ellemberg called Hyundai Canada, the dealership provided her with a free courtesy car for the rest of that period.

The dealership performed the recall repair around June 15. When Ms. Ellemberg retrieved the car on June 21, she had to return it immediately because a protective plate under the vehicle had come loose. That repair was completed and she got the car back a few days later. Around June 26 or 27, while driving on a highway, she tried to brake without success. She managed to slow down without incident and left the vehicle on a road near the highway. Another Hyundai dealership, to which the car was towed, repaired the brake line at no charge.

By letter dated March 25, 2024, she put the dealership on formal notice to pay $20,000, and she claimed the same amount in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec. Her claim comprised $16,605.14 in lost salary and $3,394.86 in moral damages for stress and inconvenience. She attributed the lost salary to what she considered an excessive immobilization during the initial repair.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The court characterized the parties' agreement as a contract for services. Under article 2100 of the Civil Code of Québec, a garage operator performing such a contract must act in the client's best interests with prudence and diligence. It must also follow the usual practices and rules of its art according to the nature of the service, and, where applicable, ensure the service conforms to the contract.

Citing Da Cunha Faria c. 9306-7999 Québec inc. (Constructions Philippe Cusson), 2025 QCCS 179, the court stated that delivering work in conformity with the rules of the art is an obligation of result. That applies where the garage operator undertakes to achieve a specific and determined result. Relying on Ménard c. Gestion Gérald Savard inc., 2024 QCCQ 6792, it added that case law treats a garage's repair of a vehicle as such an obligation.

In assessing damages, the court relied on two further Civil Code provisions. Article 1479 grounded Ms. Ellemberg's obligation to attempt to minimize her damages. Article 1607 supported the principle that only prejudice that is an immediate and direct consequence of the debtor's fault gives rise to compensation in damages.

Reasoning and analysis

Fault was admitted by the dealership. It acknowledged that its June 2023 brake line repair was defective and gave way, causing a leak in the hydraulic system feeding the brakes. The leak deprived Ms. Ellemberg of all braking capacity while she was driving. On that admission, the court found the dealership had failed both in its duty to act with prudence and diligence in her best interests and in its obligation to deliver the promised result, a reliable and functional brake line.

The lost-wage claim required proof of three elements: that the dealership committed a fault by keeping the car, that she suffered prejudice from it, and that the two were causally linked. It failed on all three.

Ms. Ellemberg could not show that the dealership had contractually committed to returning the car by a set date. She chose to leave it there knowing that parts delays could prolong the wait. Her proof of income consisted not of pay stubs but of what appeared to be screenshots of employer deposits into her bank account. The deposit dates appeared to match the immobilization period, but some also preceded it or fell several months after it. The court found their relevance and probative value weak, noting they disclosed neither a rate of pay nor hours worked and did not establish any period of work stoppage.

Causation was also missing. Even if she could not get to work, she was obliged to try to minimize her damages by finding alternative transportation, such as a rental vehicle, for the period when no courtesy car was available. A decision to stop working instead was not, from the dealership's perspective, a reasonably foreseeable prejudice.

On the moral damages claim, Ms. Ellemberg described the fright of discovering at highway speed that her brakes no longer worked at all. She stated that she has been fearful of driving since. For its part, the dealership said it understood the stress she experienced.

The court looked to two precedents. In Dumais c. Chrysler Canada inc., 2015 QCCQ 13079, the court awarded $1,000 in moral damages to a car owner whose safety was compromised by a manufacturing defect in the braking system. In Goudreault c. Audi Sherbrooke, 2025 QCCQ 6535, it awarded $5,000 for defects affecting the vehicle's safety, reliability and normal use, including the braking system activating without driver intervention, notably on the highway. In light of those precedents, the court found the $3,394.86 claimed to be fair and appropriate compensation.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted the claim in part, with Ms. Ellemberg as the successful party. 9058-3287 Québec inc. was ordered to pay her $3,394.86, with interest at the annual rate of 5% plus the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec from March 25, 2024. It must also pay legal costs, which the decision does not quantify. Nothing was awarded on the $16,605.14 lost-wage claim.