Ali Chahbar

The appellants purchased a vehicle with a malfunctioning air conditioner and sued the selling dealer, the supplying dealer, and various individuals for over $400,000.

After settling with the selling dealer for a full refund plus additional compensation, the appellants continued their action against the supplying dealer and its manager.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims, finding no contractual relationship, no evidence of negligence, and that any damages were already fully compensated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The appellant purchased rims and tires for his vehicle, financed by the respondent.

The respondent registered a non-possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act (RSLA) and attempted to seize the vehicle when the appellant defaulted.

The application judge declared the respondent was entitled to the lien.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the vendor never possessed or repaired the vehicle, meaning no possessory lien arose that could be converted to a non-possessory lien or assigned to the respondent.

The court also held that RSLA liens arise by statute, not contract, and the deemed possession provision in s. 3(4) did not apply.

The appeal was allowed and the lien declared invalid.