Lots of new decisions this week, but not a lot of interesting ones, so I’ve only picked 4.

Legault c. Opris (insurance, car repairs)
Plaintiff is suing for damages from the repairs (or lack thereof) to his vehicle, and cost of car rental during the time of the repairs. Plaintiff brought the vehicle to Defendant’s garage for repairs after an accident. Plaintiff’s insurance company sent an agent to the garage to assess damages, after which the agent issued a check to Defendant to cover repair costs. The car was only given back to Plaintiff over a month later, with some repairs omitted. Defendant claims the insurance company signed off on the repairs, so Plaintiff should complain to his insurer.
Result: The judge rejected the damages regarding rental of a car during the repairs. The document used to prove the costs has been drafted by a friend of Plaintiff. However, testimony showed the car had been lent to Plaintiff in exchange of services rendered. Moreover, the receipt said taxes were included, thought the friend had no authorisation to levy taxes. The Court concluded the deal was against tax laws, and Courts will not honour such agreements.
As for the damages regarding repairs, Plantiff should have sued his insurer, as it was the insurance company who had the obligation to return the car in the state it was before the accident.

Arama c. Azoulay (copyright violation)
Plaintiff is asking for $5000 over damages after Defendant used a photo taken by Plaintiff, without compensation or attribution. Plaintiff had posted a low-resolution version of the photo to a website. Defendant used the photo on the cover of his book. Plaintiff attended the book’s launching and confronted Defendant. He claims having found the image on a website, with no source or attribution. He claims having used the image in good faith. He also demands $999 from Plaintiff for spoiling his book launch.
Result: The usage of the image infringes on Plaintiff’s copyright, and causes her prejudice as she is a professional photographer. The Court grants Plaintiff $2000 in damages.
On the other hand, The Court rejected the $999 counter-suit since Plaintiff’s behaviour was caused by Defendant’s infringement.
Note: the court didn’t consider being rude as illegal or, at least in this case, as warranting damages. We also note that the Court does sometimes “arbitrarily” set damages. In this case, we can’t tell if Plaintiff testified on the cost of a license for her pictures. One could imagine the defendant could have reduced his damages if he could prove Plaintiff usually licences her images at a lower rate.

Dumont c. Dépanneur Yun Wang (damages to car due to gas quality)
Plaintiff is asking for $1 240,73 over damages to his car caused by the poor quality of gas bought at Defendant’s gas station. Plaintiff filled up his car at defendant’s gas station, then notices his motor emitting smoke later that day. He decides to bring his car to the garage the next week, but the car does not even start. However, after replacing the diesel by new fuel, the car starts normally, and Plaintiff has not had a problem since.
Result: Claim is rejected. Plaintiff never formally notified Defendants as required by law (CCQ 1595, 1738). Moreover, Plaintiff has not proven that the gas was tainted or unfit for use (nobody kept a sample for analysis), and defendant never got any complaint from anyone else.

St-Pierre c. Bell Mobilité cellulaire inc. (damages from change in cell phone plan)
Plaintiff is suing Bell for $4950 worth of damages after Defendant made changes to Plaintiff’s cell phone plan. Plaintiff was a long term customer of Defendant’s. In 2010, Defendant offered Plaintiff a new cell phone should he sign up for a 3-year contract. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff saw some of his services cut, and his voicemail erased. Defendant also charged him for more service fees. Being a consultant, Plaintiff claims the changes affected his business.
Result: The Court awarded Plaintiff $2000 for partial damages. Plaintiff claimed expenses to produce new supplies with a different phone number, but had no invoice to prove them. However, since Defendant was at fault for not disclosing the changes in their service plans, and Plaintiff did suffer damages, the Court decided on the amount of $2000.