2017 QCCQ 10908, 2017 QCCQ 10908

Construction Cybco inc. c. 9322-3485 Québec inc. (Relo Immobilier inc.) 2017 QCCQ 10908 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-22-232113-160 DATE: September 7, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ CONSTRUCTION CYBCO INC.

Plaintiff v. 9322-3485 QUÉBEC INC. doing business under the firm and style name of “RELO IMMOBILIER INC.” Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT RENDERED FROM THE BENCH ______________________________________________________________________ The written version of this judgment contains minor modifications for clarity’s sake. [ 1 ] Plaintiff has the burden of proof ( articles 2803 and 2804 Civil Code of Quebec ). [ 2 ] The testimony of Serge Chiasson, plaintiff’s principal, was most credible and convincing.

He was clear and unwavering as to the facts surrounding this case. [ 3 ] The Court believes that Dhiren Patel, defendant’s principal, asked Chiasson to build the “rough” bathroom in his office located at 1055 Wellington. [ 4 ] In fact, Dhiren Patel bought the toilet and sink, as per the parties’ agreement, and never asked Robert Cohen of Griffix Developments Inc. to reimburse him for the cost thereof. [ 5 ] He also assumed the costs of “putting up the walls and doing the floors” in the premises. [ 6 ] The only reason why plaintiff initially invoiced Rajesh Patel’s restaurant business is because he was asked to do so for reasons which belong to defendant and his brother, not plaintiff. [ 7 ] Furthermore, the invoice, which was sent to “Restaurant Wellington”, does not prove that the parties did not enter into a contract.

The Court is convinced that defendant did indeed ask plaintiff to do the work; and, furthermore, defendant benefited from this work. [ 8 ] Defendant claims that Robert Cohen / Griffix Developments Inc. was supposed to pay for the work. However, Cohen was not here to testify. [ 9 ] Also, deed of sale D-1 does not contradict plaintiff’s position, as Griffix Developments Inc. did in fact pay for another “rough bathroom” on the premises.

[ 10 ] Ever since the bathroom was built and the invoice sent, no one contested and no one asked questions, until plaintiff demanded payment for its work. [ 11 ] In response to defendant’s argument regarding the absence of a written contract, there is no doubt in the Court’s mind that a verbal contract of enterprise intervened between plaintiff and defendant, and that there was a meeting of the minds as to the object and the price of the contract (to be determined and calculated according to an hourly rate and materials). [ 12 ] The testimony of defendant’s principal was simply not believable and often contradictory and unconvincing. [ 13 ] It would be too easy for defendant’s principal to give plaintiff a mandate; then for his brother Rajesh to ask Chiasson to invoice another company; and then to change the billing instructions, after the completion of the work; and finally to feign that neither contracted with plaintiff.

There is no doubt here that defendant asked plaintiff to do the work and benefited therefrom, and is therefore liable for the price of said work. [ 14 ] The originating judicial application is therefore granted, as per its conclusions, save for the date from which interest is to be calculated. WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: GRANTS the originating judicial application, in part; SENTENCES defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of $11,494.64, plus interest at the legal annual rate of 5% and the additional indemnity provided for in

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec , from June 14, 2016; THE WHOLE , with legal costs. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Me Victoria Tchistiakova MORENCY Société d’avocats, s.e.n.c.r.l. Lawyers for plaintiff Me Isabelle Chatigny BENABOU MAGLI Avocats Lawyers for defendant Date of hearing: September 7, 2017