2015 QCCQ 2340, 2015 QCCQ 2340

Idot Technologies Inc. c. J. Kromida Consultants 2015 QCCQ 2340 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-137481-133 DATE: February 24, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY EDWARDS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IDOT TECHNOLOGIES INC. Plaintiff v. J.

KROMIDA CONSULTANTS -and- JAMES KROMIDA Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Idot Technologies Inc. (“ Idot ”) sues J.

Kromida Consultants and James Kromida (“ Kromida ”) for services rendered for computer support and counsel. [ 2 ] The total amount claimed in the invoices is $7,887.57. [ 3 ] Idot Technologies Inc. has reduced its claim to $7,000 in order to deposit its claim in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec. [ 4 ] There is no doubt that the services were rendered and the details of the services are amply described in the invoices. [ 5 ] Kromida reproaches Idot for the crash of a hard drive in September 2012 that was used for their important payroll system and payroll service. [ 6 ] As a result of the crash, all the payroll data from June 23, 2012 to September 2012 was lost. [ 7 ] Under the system put in place by Idot, that data was supposed to have been backed up manually by a computer prompting system.

After the crash, there were many efforts made by Idot to retrieve that data from a hard drive, but those efforts proved unsuccessful. Kromida then worked with another company to attempt to retrieve the data on the hard drive, but also to no avail. [ 8 ] There is no conclusive proof that the inability to retrieve that data was attributable to Idot. [ 9 ] Idot states that the responsibility for the crash rested squarely with Kromida and his personnel in that they had various electrical problems causing periodic electrical overloads, that Mr. Kromida visited high risk websites susceptible to contracting a virus

and that Mr. Kromida did not want to upgrade his existing computer network system for reasons of costs. [ 10 ] Based upon the evidence, those grounds of defence have partial merit. But the Court does not accept that they fully exonerate Idot for the payroll crash disaster and the resulting loss of data. [ 11 ] Crashes of computer systems will and do occur. It is always a risk. It is often impossible to determine the cause of a crash.

But the practical method used and followed by computer network consultants to manage that risk is to always ensure that there is a reliable back up system in place. [ 12 ] If a proper system for back up of data for payroll services had existed and had been installed on a centralized server before the incident in September 2012, then the damages suffered by Kromida would not have occurred or would at least have been far less. [ 13 ] Idot’s representatives testified that they tried to convince Mr. Kromida to install a back up system for payroll but that he rejected their advice. Mr.

Kromida denies this and explained that over the period of his relationship with Idot, his firm paid each year tens of thousands of dollars and he expected professional service. [ 14 ] The Court’s assessment is that Mr. Kromida is a careful business man with regards to spending.

But the Court does not believe that he is either stingy or unwise. [ 15 ] Had the risks of loss of data for the payroll service been properly explained to him, for such a critical part of his business, the Court is of the view that he would not have hesitated to incur the additional expenses in order to upgrade his back up system of data to prevent what ended up happening. Idot was in part responsible for the loss of data in not making Mr. Kromida fully aware of the risks of the existing network system and the lack of an automatic back up for the payroll data. [ 16 ] Mr.

Kromida testified that it cost his firm to reconstitute the payroll data some $5,000, essentially for extra time spent by employees for that exercise. That amount is supported by the proof. [ 17 ] The Court considers that both parties should share equally responsibility for those extra costs. [ 18 ] Therefore, the Court will reduce the amount sought by Idot by $2,500 and grant the remaining charges for services rendered. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS in

part Idot Technologies Inc.’s motion; CONDEMNS Defendants J. Kromida Consultants and James Kromida to pay Idot Technologies Inc. the amount of $4,500, with legal interest of 5% per annum plus the additional indemnity provided at

Article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec , from the date of the demand letter (Exhibit P-9), January 25, 2013; WITH JUDICIAL COSTS of $218 in favour of Idot Technologies Inc. __________________________________ Jeffrey Edwards, J.C.Q.

Date of hearing: February 24, 2015