SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: Bruce v. Corra, 2023 NSSM 39

Date: 20230428

Docket: SCCH 520532

Registry: Halifax

Between:

Brenda Lee Bruce

 

Claimant

 

- and -

 

Gianantonio Corra and Lisa Corra

Defendants

 

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

 

 

 

Adjudicator:        Eric K. Slone

 

Heard:                 April 13, 2023 via zoom in Halifax, Nova Scotia

 

Appearances:       For the Claimant, self-represented

 

For the Defendants, Andrew Christofi, counsel

BY THE COURT:

 

[1]              The Claimant responded to a Facebook Marketplace ad for a 2008 Toyota Yaris being sold by the Defendant Gianantonio Corra on behalf of his daughter Lisa Corra. The ad stated that the kilometres on the vehicle were 245,000. The price listed was for $3,500.00.

 

[2]              The Claimant negotiated the price down to $2,100.00. The Claimant drove away with the vehicle on November 13, 2022.

 

[3]              The odometer read 245,000, or thereabouts, as advertised.

 

[4]              The Claimant has come to learn that the odometer is incorrect. The actual number of kilometres that the vehicle has been driven is more like 400,000. In this claim the Claimant seeks to rescind the transaction and claims damages for misrepresentation.

 

[5]              The Defendant Lisa Corra acquired the vehicle in October 2017. Little is known about the previous owners.

 

[6]              I am satisfied that the Defendant Lisa Corra paid little attention to the number of kilometres on her vehicle, and did not knowingly misrepresent the mileage on the vehicle to the Claimant or to anyone else.

 

[7]              I am also satisfied that the Defendant Gianantonio Corra did not knowingly misrepresent anything about the vehicle.

 

[8]              The Claimant found evidence in the vehicle which provides some clues to what is a true mystery:

 

a.                  There was a windshield sticker from Truro Toyota advising that the next service was due in Jan/19 and at 370,501 km. This sticker was loose in the glove compartment, and not necessarily obvious.

 

b.                 There was a removable air filter upon which someone had handwritten “328 k - Nov 2015.” This would not have been necessarily obvious to someone like Lisa Corra

 

c.                  There was an ownership certificate issued by the Province of Nova Scotia in October 2017, which shows the odometer reading as 191,000. It seems likely that whoever created the certificate did not inspect the odometer, given that the reported kilometres is a round number. That was likely an estimate given by Ms. Corra.

 

d.                 There was a Motor Vehicle Inspection Certificate issued on August 25, 2017 showing the odometer reading as 383,102.

 

[9]              A vehicle service history from Truro Toyota shows service visits from 2011 up to July 2018, with odometer readings starting at about 161,000 moving gradually up to 362,501. Lisa Corra did not likely have any such records, as they were acquired as part of the Claimant’s investigation.

 

[10]         Lisa Corra produced service records from other dealerships showing odometer readings of 217,411 in April 2019 and 239,299 in January 2022.

 

[11]         In short, the evidence is confusing and somewhat contradictory.

 

[12]         The most logical, though imperfect conclusion, is that at some time early in Lisa Corra’s ownership the odometer was rolled back.

 

[13]         If so, by whom and why?

 

[14]         It is a criminal offence under the Weights and Measures Act of Canada , punishable by up to two years in jail, to tamper with an odometer:

 

27 (1) Every person is guilty of an offence who

 

(a)  alters or adjusts the odometer of a motor vehicle in such a manner that as a result of the alteration or adjustment the total distance indicated on the odometer is other than the total distance travelled by that vehicle; or

 

(b)  replaces the odometer of a motor vehicle without setting the replacement odometer to the total distance travelled by the vehicle.

[15]         Most people would not have the faintest idea how to roll back an odometer, whether of the mechanical type that used to be prevalent or the digital type that is in use now.

 

[16]         Nor does it make sense why anyone, least of all the Defendants, would want to risk prosecution for fraud for the dubious benefit of making an old car look a little less driven.

 

[17]         I do not expect the mystery to be solved.

 

[18]         The question for this court is whether the Claimant can establish that the Defendants, or either of them, negligently or intentionally misrepresented the state of the vehicle.

 

[19]         I conclude that the Defendants were totally unaware of what happened to this odometer and did not make any misrepresentation.

 

[20]         Had I found otherwise, the only remedy that the Claimant could have hoped for is damages. This court does not have the authority to grant the equitable remedy of rescission. The measure of those damages would have been the difference between what the Claimant paid and the value of the vehicle as is. The Claimant offered no evidence of the vehicle’s actual value. The evidence is that the vehicle is functioning well, for an older vehicle, although there appears to be a minor problem with rust. That can hardly be unexpected in a 13-year-old car.

 

ORDER

 

[21]         In the result, though the Claimant clearly has reason to be disappointed with what she has learned about her car, the claim must be dismissed as against these Defendants.

 

 

Eric K. Slone, Adjudicator