2020 QCCQ 5222, 2020 QCCQ 5222

Hadlock c. Wisdom 2020 QCCQ 5222 COURT OF QUÉBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD LOCALITY OF COWANSVILLE «Civil Division» No: 455-32-006022-197 DATE: March 12, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ THE HONOURABLE PIERRE BACHAND, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ QUENTIN HADLOCK Plaintiff v.

APRIL WISDOM Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On the day set for the hearing of this case, the Court advised the parties at the outset that it did not have jurisdiction and that the case would be transferred to the Superior Court. [ 2 ] Here is a short

summary of the proceedings. The plaintiff filed an application where he claimed $15,000. He stated that the parties signed on March 21st 2016 an agreement by which the defendant "transferred" (gave) half of the ownership of an immoveable property to him. [ 3 ] According to the plaintiff, the municipal evaluation of this property was $ 290,960. As there was an hypothec in the amount of $217,134 in 2014, the plaintiff makes the following calculation: $290,960 - $217,134 = $73,826. He rounds up at $73,800, divides by 2 and the result is $36,900. That is what he considers his share. [ 4 ] He voluntarily reduces his claim at $ 15,000, as provided by

article 538 C.C.P. [ 5 ] The defendant contests the application and files a cross-application for $8,000. In her defence, she states that, for various reasons, the "contract" is "null and void", that it is "not legally valid or enforceable". In other words, she is asking the Court to pronounce the nullity and the resolution of the "contract". [ 6 ] Article 35 (1) C.C.P. reads as follows: "35(1).

The Court of Québec has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine applications in which the value of the subject matter of the dispute or the amount claimed, including in lease resiliation matters, is less than $85,000, exclusive of interest; it also hears and determines applications ancillary to such an application, including those for the specific performance of a contractual obligation.

However, it does not have such jurisdiction in cases where jurisdiction is formally and exclusively assigned to another court or adjudicative body, or in family matters other than adoption." If one could have thought at the beginning that this case was a simple claim of $15,000, the defence now shows that the value of the subject matter of the dispute (in French, "la valeur de l’objet du litige") is quite different. [ 7 ] It is the right of undivided co-ownership of an immoveable property worth at least $290,960.

This falls within the Superior Court’s jurisdiction. [ 8 ] Finally, the defendant filed a cross-application by which she is claiming $8,000 for damages suffered when the plaintiff destroyed many of her belongings and damaged her immoveable property.

[ 9 ] The Court considered the possibility of disjoining the cross-application and hearing this part of the case but decides otherwise because of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Desjardins v.

Beaulieu, AZ-98011528 . [ 10 ] In this case, a cross-application deprived the Court of Québec of its jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal stated that the whole case was to be submitted to the Superior Court which would decide to disjoin or not the application and the cross-application if they did not have the same juridical basis or if they were not raising the same issues of law and fact. [ 11 ] There is a specific provision in article 35(2) C.C.P. providing that an application is no longer within the jurisdiction of the Court of Québec when a cross-application is filed for an amount of $85,000 or more.

There is no such provision for a defence which is within the Superior Court’s jurisdiction but this Court sees no reason to apply another kind of solution. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 12 ] ORDERS the transfer of the file to the Superior Court. [ 13 ] WHITHOUT legal costs. __________________________________ Pierre Bachand, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: March 11, 2020