2013 QCCQ 11865, 2013 QCCQ 11865

Robert c. Ascani 2013 QCCQ 11865 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF HULL TOWN OF GATINEAU Civil Division No: 550-32-020444-128 DATE: September 25, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND SÉGUIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ PATRICE ROBERT , […] , Gatineau (Québec) […] Plaintiff v.

JESSICA ASCANI , […] , Kanata (Ontario) […] Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff's claim is as follows: "1. The Defendant owes an amount of $9,356.79 to the Plaintiff for the following reasons: Le demandeur a payé un prêt personnel de la défenderesse que celle-ci avait contracté et ne pouvait plus payer. La somme payé pour le prêt de la défenderesse a été ajoutée au prêt automobile du demandeur.

La défenderesse a convenu verbalement de payer, à raison de 300$/mois, la somme additionnelle qui a été ajoutée au prêt automobile du demandeur dès son retour au travail aux environs du mois de Décembre 2010; 2. The debt was incurred on March 5, 2010 at Gatineau. 3. The Defendant should have paid the amount owing on May 2, 2011. 4. The Plaintiff has written evidence of the debt. 5. If payment was not made within the stipulated time, the agreement did not provide for the payment of interest. 6. The Plaintiff has not received any partial payments. 7 The Defendant still owes the Plaintiff an amount of $ 9,356.79. 8.

The Plaintiff agrees to reduce the amount of the claim to $ 7,000.00 9. The Plaintiff makes the following clarifications to the facts set out above: See

schedule 1." [ 2 ] The defendant contests the demand on the grounds that the parties reached a verbal settlement on March 28, 2012 and adds that the claim "is a frivolous suit based on a vendicative attempt to seek vengeance". [ 3 ] As explained by the defendant the parties lived together from July 2009 to July 30 th 2011, when she was "kicked out of his home" by the plaintiff. [ 4 ] On August 12, 2009, the couple had a daughter together namely, Vanessa Teya Robert-Ascani. [ 5 ] The evidence indicates that on March 03, 2010 they decided to trade in the defendant's car (a 2009 Honda) towards the purchase of a new car, a 2009 Acura MDX.

[ 6 ] According to the plaintiff this decision was taken because the defendant could not pay the monthly expenses for her car (loan and insurance). [ 7 ] According to the defendant the trade in of her car for the purchase of the Acura MDX was motivated to save money and to use the by-weekly payments of $250 for the new family needs: vacations, mutual funds, Vanessa's private post-secondary education, groceries, etc. [ 8 ] The defendant affirms that after the purchase of the Acura MDX, she was able to save towards their first trip as a family to Miami Florida on April 2010. [ 9 ] The plaintiff denies these explanations and sustains that the defendant had verbally engaged herself to pay $9,356.79 to him, which was the difference between the value of her car and the withstanding balance of the loan on her car. [ 10 ] According to this verbal agreement, the plaintiff states that the defendant had to pay $300 a month as soon as she goes back to work, around December 2010; afterwards this term has been extended to May 2011. [ 11 ] The defendant states that on March 29, 2012 the parties negotiated a final settlement for $3,000, which was paid on the same date. [ 12 ] After analysis of the whole evidence, the Tribunal concludes that the plaintiff's claim will be dismissed for lack of satisfying evidence, for the following reasons. [ 13 ] First, on the only documentary evidence, that is the bill of sale signed on March 3, 2010, there is no mention of a difference between the value of the Honda and the withstanding balance of the loan related to it: in fact, on the contract the figures are exactly the same for these items ((1) (V)), which is $26,410. [ 14 ] It is important to note that the purchase of the Acura MDX, on March 3, 2010, was made under both names of the parties. [ 15 ] Finally, the Tribunal considers that the payment of a lump sum of $3,000, on March 29, 2012, by the defendant (almost a year after the separation), as explained by her, was given as settlement out of Court.

THEREFORE, FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL: DISMISSES the claim with cost. __________________________________ RAYMOND SÉGUIN, J.Q.C . Date of hearing: September 9, 2013.