2020 QCCQ 834, 2020 QCCQ 834

Louizos c. Bell Canada 2020 QCCQ 834 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-160769-198 DATE: January 15, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DEMETRE LOUIZOS Plaintiff v.

BELL CANADA Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff Demetre Louizos, a retired professor of engineering, sues Bell Canada (Bell) in connection with the suspension of his telephone, internet and television services provided by Bell Canada during his absence from Montreal for a trip to Greece, from April 27, 2016 to September 10, 2016. [ 2 ] Before leaving on this trip, Mr. Louizos contacted Bell in order to suspend his services and was given a confirmation number.

When he returned from Greece, however, where he had been visiting his family, he discovered on September 10, 2016 that his services had not been reconnected and he was unable to communicate by telephone with his family members in Greece to advise them of his arrival. [ 3 ] On September 10, 2016 and the following days, he discovered that his services had been suspended by Bell and would not be reinstated because of Bell’s claim of an outstanding debt of approximately $ 192.00, a debt which he had contested and continues to maintain is not owing. [ 4 ] He testifies that, in speaking with a representative of Bell to suspend the services during his departure, it was agreed that the ongoing dispute about the balance owing would be dealt with when he returned. [ 5 ] He asserts therefore that the suspension and the eventual cancellation of his services were unlawful and claims $ 15,000 in damages. [ 6 ] He never reinstalled the services with Bell nor with any competitor.

He now has a mobile phone and he uses the internet at public venues, although he still has an internet address with Bell under the Sympatico address. [ 7 ] Bell disputes having committed any fault in connexion with the claim, maintaining that its decision to suspend and then cancel the account because of non-payment was taken with the proper procedures of prior written notices.

Although, the debt was relatively small, there had been in the past a certain number of incidents where there had been late payments and, given that there was no response through the months of May, June and July, the services were suspended and cancelled for non-payment. [ 8 ] To resolve this dispute, the Court must answer the following questions: 1- Did Bell have a valid claim for an unpaid balance? 2- Before suspending and then cancelling the services, did Bell give proper notice? 3- If Bell was at fault, what prejudice did this cause to Mr.

Louizos and what is the monetary value of this prejudice? [ 9 ] In scrutinizing the accounting documents and hearing the testimony of Bell’s witness Marc Lefebvre, whose title is adjoint au support juridique et formateur , it becomes clear that there was a valid charge on the Bell invoices of March and April 2016, leaving an unpaid balance. [ 10 ] Mr. Louizos states that he made payments in good faith despite his disagreement and, while it is clear that he paid an amount $ 409.36 on an account of $ 598.11, there was a remaining balance for current services that was not acquitted.

The amount of $ 192.20 remained outstanding after his departure. While the Court does not question Mr. Louizos sincerity when he states that he believed this amount was suspended during his absence and would be discussed upon his return, there is no evidence in Bell’s records that this is the case. The Court accepts as well the sincerity and accuracy of the testimony of Bell’s representatives, Marc Lefebvre and Arlette Mailly, to the effect that it would not be possible within Bell’s procedures and policies to simply postpone the discussion about a contested

charge for a period corresponding with a client’s travel plans for such a long period. [ 11 ] At any rate, the issue in the present case has less to do with the amount allegedly owing and more to do with the manner in which Bell terminated the services. [ 12 ] Mr.

Louizos, in answer to the Court’s questions, stated that he did not provide for any means to verify his correspondence with Bell nor did he check, by logging into Bell’s electronic system through the internet during his lengthy absence because he did not think there was any reason to do so. [ 13 ] In the Court’s view, it was nevertheless incumbent on Mr.

Louizos, given that there was an outgoing dispute with Bell, not to have his mail checked and not to maintain a means of communication, which he could have done by telephone or internet from a distance. [ 14 ] If he had been attentive to his correspondence, he would have seen successive notices from Bell and would have been able to contact them to arrange either for a payment under protest or some other means to avoid the suspension and eventual termination of his services. [ 15 ] Bell cannot be faulted for following through on its procedures of suspension and termination when a client fails to be available and in communication for such a long period of time. [ 16 ] Even if the amount of the default is small, the Court accepts Bell’s explanation that, given a lack of communication and the past issues relating to the account, it was not inappropriate to suspend and then terminate the services, especially when clear notices of its intent were given affording the client the opportunity to resolve the matter. [ 17 ] If Mr.

Louizos had wished to avoid the suspension and termination of his services, while maintaining his contestation of Bell’s claim, he could have paid under protest and then brought proceedings to have a court determine that the money should be reimbursed to him. [ 18 ] By not acting, he was, in a way, the author of his own misfortune when, upon his return September 10, 2016, he could not use his telephone. In the Court’s view, the misunderstanding, if that is what it was, would not have had any detrimental consequences if Mr.

Louizos had taken the reasonable steps of maintaining communications by having his mail forwarded or checked by relatives on his behalf during his extended absence. [ 19 ] Finally, concerning the allegations of damages, the Court is of the view that the inconvenience of not having the services would have only lasted, at most, one business day, if Mr. Louizos had decided to reinstate the services by paying Bell under protest and then having the matter dealt with by negotiation or legal proceedings.

If he had done that, they would have been through real inconvenience. [ 20 ] While upon his return to Montreal, he could not immediately phone his Greek relatives from his apartment, he could have made the call from a public phone or with the assistance of a relative who lives in Montreal and who is attentive to his needs. Mr. Louizos is an elderly gentleman who has certain health problems but who is nevertheless energetic, well-disposed and mentally sharp. The Court perceived that it is really a question of principle that he brought this claim and not truly a question of prejudice.

If he did not wish to deal in the long-term with Bell, he could have had services provided by a competitor. That would perhaps have resulted in a few days without services but, since he took no measures to mitigate his alleged prejudices, it does not seem appropriate to compensate him for a prejudice he did not seek to avoid. Bell did make one apparent error in the treatment of Mr. Louizos’ file in that it continued to charge, over the summer months until the suspension and resiliation of the services, for the internet connection.

That amount, however, was corrected and did not form part of the claim that resulted in the suspension and resiliation of services. [ 21 ] Bell has not exercised the monetary claim against Mr. Louizos, allowing whatever is still on its books to become prescribed. [ 22 ] Both parties were very courteous and reasonable in their approach to this case before the Court. For that reason, there will be no award as to costs. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the application; Each party paying its costs. __________________________ David L. Cameron, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: December 3, 2019