2021 QCCQ 11903, 2021 QCCQ 11903

Dupont-Rachiele c. Tadros 2021 QCCQ 11903 COURT OF QUEBEC “ Small Claims Division ” CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL “ Civil Division ” No: 500-32-706529-189 DATE: October 19, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE DAVIGNON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ JÉRÔME DUPONT-RACHIELE Plaintiff v.

ALAMIR TADROS Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT RENDERED AT THE HEARING [1] ______________________________________________________________________ OVERVIEW [ 1 ] Mtre. Jérôme Dupont-Rachiele is claiming from Mr. Alamir Tadros an amount of $2,074.32 in connection with his professional services. [ 2 ] On September 18, 2015, Mr. Tadros signed a mandate in favor of Mtre.

Dupont-Rachiele whereby he retained his services in connection with his reinstatement as a taxi driver affiliated to Diamond, a taxi company, and he agreed to pay legal fees at an hourly rate of $150 and to also pay his disbursements for the services to be rendered [2] . ANALYSIS [ 3 ] Mtre. Dupont-Rachiele testifies in Court that when he first met with Mr. Tadros, the latter explained to him that he had several issues with Diamond and with a lady who he felt was hired to provoke him and to provide reasons to Diamond to cease its affiliation with him. Mr.

Tadros felt he was being harassed and he was challenging the company’s decision to bring him before the disciplinary board of taxi drivers. [ 4 ] At the hearing, Mtre. Dupont-Rachiele explains to the Court that the several issues Mr. Tadros had with Diamond and other people related to this company were such that at the first meeting held on September 18, 2015, he had brought to him a thick binder of documents referring to all these issues which meant reading many documents and making researches before giving an opinion to him. [ 5 ] Mr. Tadros admits having retained the services of Mtre.

Dupont-Rachiele and that he had agreed to pay him an hourly rate of $150. He also admits that on September 18, 2015, he gave a retainer of $1,200 to Mtre. Dupont and that this retainer was not to cover all the legal fees and disbursements to be involved in this file. [ 6 ] Mtre. Dupont-Rachiele issued two invoices for his professional services rendered to Mr.

Tadros, one dated November 1 st , 2015 for a total amount of $2,935.14 out of which there would be an outstanding balance of $1,735.14 when he applied the retainer of $1,200 and a second dated November 15, 2015 for an amount of $339.18, which is still outstanding. [ 7 ] Both these invoices refer to an annex pertaining to the services rendered by Mtre. Dupont-Rachiele beginning on September 18, 2015 up to November 24, 2015. All the time entries are extremely detailed and refer to specific services rendered, notably to review several documents, to draft letters, to send these drafts to Mr.

Tadros, to obtain his consent to the draft letters and to issue these letters to the appropriate opposing parties. [ 8 ] Mr. Tadros alleges that following the reception of the first invoice which he received on November 1 st , 2015 he would have asked Mtre. Dupont-Rachiele to cease representing him. He alleges that when he saw this invoice for an amount close to $3,000 he felt that there was no way he could afford them, more particularly taking into account that he felt that by that time he was almost sure that he had no grounds to undertake any recourses whatsoever against the opposing parties and that Mtre.

Dupont-Rachiele should have known it even prior to that. [ 9 ] With great respect, the Court doesn’t agree with the arguments raised by Mr. Tadros. The court record and the proof showed that following the reception of this invoice on November 1 st , 2015, he kept sending documents to Mtre. Dupont-Rachiele and asking him to review them and give him some advices. [ 10 ] In an email dated December 12, 2015 from Mr. Tadros addressed to Mtre. Dupont-Rachele following the second invoice he writes:

“The conclusion I would like to tell you that from now on I will not use your service.” [ 11 ] This proves that it’s only by then that he decided to terminate his dealings with Mtre. Dupont-Rachiele. It is also reflected in all of the interventions and the entries that are part of the second invoice dated November 15, 2015, which illustrate that Mr. Tadros was still sending documents to Mtre. Dupont-Rachiele and asking him to render professional services. [ 12 ] Therefore the Court concludes that Mtre. Dupont-Rachiele did discharge himself from proving that the services he rendered to Mr.

Tadros were provided to his very request and that he had agreed to pay him an hourly rate of $150 for them. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 13 ] GRANTS the application in total; [ 14 ] CONDEMNS Mr. Alamir Tadros to pay to Mtre. Jérôme Dupont-Rachiele the amount of $2,074.32 with the contractual interest at a rate of 12% as of January 6, 2016; [ 15 ] CONDEMNS Mr. Alamir Tadros to pay to Mtre. Jérôme Dupont-Rachiele the legal fees in the amount of $101. __________________________________ STÉPHANE DAVIGNON, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: October 19, 2021