Décision

[1]           WHEREAS defendant did not attend the hearing, notwithstanding having been duly summoned and called;

[2]           GIVEN the services contract which intervened between the parties, on October 13, 2014 (exhibit P-1);

[3]           WHEREAS defendant undertook to provide potential lifemate matches to plaintiff, based on her preferences and criteria;

[4]           WHEREAS plaintiff communicated these preferences and criteria to defendant, at the outset, the whole following initial assessment interviews, a personal profile development, membership set-up and profile processing (par. 1 of the agreement);

[5]           WHEREAS plaintiff's likes and dislikes in a potential mate were clearly communicated and made known to defendant; these likes and dislikes covered physical attributes and ethnicity inter alia;

[6]           WHEREAS defendant patently failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract and under the law;

[7]           WHEREAS, although it only had an obligation of means, defendant failed to meet the most basic and elementary criteria required by plaintiff;

[8]           WHEREAS of 3 matches, 2 were overweight, which the plaintiff clearly did not want, and a third was not Caucasian as requested by plaintiff;

[9]           WHEREAS, when plaintiff tried to provide feedback to defendant with a view to discuss these issues and to help move the process along more efficiently, defendant was nowhere to be found;

[10]        WHEREAS, at the outset, defendant misrepresented the selection process to plaintiff;

[11]        WHEREAS not only did it undertake to select potential matches according to plaintiff's preferences and criteria, but it also promised to welcome and take into account plaintiff's feedback on suggested matches;

[12]        WHEREAS defendant failed on both fronts;

[13]        WHEREAS plaintiff's many emails and phone calls were ignored;

[14]        WHEREAS, furthermore, defendant asked plaintiff to pay the full price of the services at the execution of the contract ($2,868.63), that which it was not allowed to do in virtue of art. 192 of the Consumer Protection Act (CQLR, c. P-40.1);

[15]        WHEREAS, moreover, the contract did not respect the provisions of art. 190 (e) and 190 in fine of the Act, which is a law of public order;

[16]        WHEREAS, what is more, in virtue of art. 8 of the Act, the Court declares that, under the circumstances particular to this case, plaintiff is entitled to ask for the nullity of the contract, as the disproportion between the respective obligations of the parties is so great as to amount to exploitation of the consumer;

[17]        WHEREAS, basically, for the price of $2,868.63, plaintiff received ineffectual and, for all intents and purposes, useless services, which were not at all what defendant represented before and at the execution of the contract or on its website;

[18]        GIVEN, in addition to the foregoing, arts. 37, 40, 41, 42, 219, 228 and 272 of the Act and arts. 1375, 1591, 1458 and 2100 ff. of the Civil Code of Quebec;

[19]        WHEREAS defendant misled plaintiff and did not act in good faith;

[20]        WHEREAS the damages, as claimed and presented at trial, were proven by a preponderance of evidence;

WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY:

GRANTS plaintiff's application;

DECLARES the contract entered into between the parties, on October 13, 2014, null and void;

SENTENCES defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of $2,868.63, plus interest at the legal annual rate of 5% and the additional indemnity provided for in article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec, as of April 15, 2015 and legal costs in the amount of $138.00.