2017 QCCQ 8470, 2017 QCCQ 8470

Wisdom c. MacMahon Maingot 2017 QCCQ 8470 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD TOWN OF COWANSVILLE Civil Division No: 455-32-005070-155 DATE: July 26 th , 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARTIN TÉTREAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ APRIL WISDOM Plaintiff v.

PATRICK MacMAHON MAINGOT Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff, Ms. April Wisdom (« Ms. Wisdom »), is claiming from defendant Mr. Patrick MacMahon Maingot (« Mr. Maingot »), the value of a wedding ring (the « Ring ») that Mr. Maingot kept despite an agreement signed on June 24 th , 2015 (the « Agreement ») [1] . [ 2 ] In his Contestation, Mr. Maingot alleges that the Agreement is null because it was signed under duress.

He also filed a counterclaim for: 1) the value of a Nissan truck (the « Truck ») that Ms. Wisdom sold without his consent and 2) damages for harassment. QUESTIONS [ 3 ] 1. Is the Agreement valid? [ 4 ] 2. Is Mr. Maingot responsible for the damages claimed because he refused to remit the Ring to Ms. Wisdom? [ 5 ] 3. Did Ms. Wisdom sell the Truck without Mr. Maingot’s authorisation? [ 6 ] 4. Is Ms. Wisdom responsible for the damages claimed by Mr. Maingot?

ANALYSIS THE LAW [ 7 ] Under Quebec law, a person who does not execute his obligation exposes himself to different sanctions, one of them being to repair the prejudice arising from his default and which is an immediate and direct consequence of the debtor’s default [2] . [ 8 ] Sections 2803 and 2804 C.C.Q. relate to the burden of proof : « 2803. A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. A person who claims that a right is null, has been modified or is extinguished shall prove the facts on which he bases his claim. 2804.

Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. » [ 9 ] The following sections describe the law concerning the nullity of an agreement : « 1399. Consent must be free and enlightened. It may be vitiated by error, fear or lesion. […] 1402. Fear of serious injury to the person or property of one of the parties vitiates consent given by that party where the fear is induced by violence or threats exerted or made by or known to the other party.

Apprehended injury may also relate to another person or his property and is appraised according to the circumstances. 1403. Fear induced by the abusive exercise of a right or power or by the threat of such exercise vitiates consent. […] 1407. A person whose consent is vitiated has the right to apply for annulment of the contract; in the case of error occasioned by fraud, of fear or of lesion, he may, in addition to annulment, also claim damages or, where he prefers that the contract be maintained, apply for a reduction of his obligation equivalent to the damages he would be justified in claiming. »

APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE 1. The Demand [ 10 ] The parties are former spouses. [ 11 ] On August 11 th , 2015, a judgment of divorce was rendered. [ 12 ] Before this judgment, the parties agreed to split their belongings. At the hearing, the parties confirmed that this case was not related to the divorce proceeding. [ 13 ] On June 24 th , 2015, the parties concluded at an agreement concerning the Ring’s handover from Mr. Maingot’s.

The text of the Agreement reads as follows [3] : « I Patrick MacMahon Maingot agree to return April Wisdom’s wedding ring on or before Thursday July 2 nd 2015 (5pm). With my promise to return April Wisdom’s wedding ring, April has agreed to allow me to remove ALL my personal belongings from 88 Saint- Paul Rd, Lac Brome, QC. [Signatures and date omitted] I Patrick am satisfied with the return of my belongings » [ 14 ] The Ring had been given as a gift to Ms. Wisdom in November 2010. Mr. Maingot admits that he never returned the Ring despite the Agreement. [ 15 ] Mr.

Maingot has not proven that he was under duress when he signed the Agreement. There is no evidence whatsoever that he could not willingly agree to handover the Ring. [ 16 ] Therefore, his argument is rejected and the Agreement is enforceable. [ 17 ] Though Mr. Maingot’s default has been proven, the Court cannot grant Ms. Wisdom’s claim because she did not file any evidence of the Ring value [4] . [ 18 ] Indeed no document nor evaluation has been filed in the Court record. [ 19 ] Under these circumstances, Ms. Wisdom’s claim is dismissed. 2. The Counterclaim [ 20 ] Mr. Maingot is claiming 6 000$ from Ms. Wisdom.

His claim is divided in two parts: 1) 3 000$ for the loss of value of a 1998 black Nissan Pathfinder that was sold for 800$ by Ms. Wisdom in 2014 and 2) 3 000$ for psychological harassment.

a) The Truck [ 21 ] The Court does not need to go into details on Mr. Maingot’s explanations since, as for Ms. Wisdom claim, no evidence of the damages claimed was made. [ 22 ] No independent evaluation of the value of the Truck at the time of the sale (2014) nor testimony of an expert in the field was adduced in evidence. [ 23 ] Therefore, this part of the Counterclaim is dismissed.

b) The Harassment [ 24 ] Mr. Maingot alleges that Ms. Wisdom diverted his old email address after their separation. [ 25 ] In support of this allegation, Mr. Maingot filed different emails [5] which, according to his testimony, would show Ms. Wisdom’s «faulty conduct». [ 26 ] A review of these emails does not support Mr. Maingot’s allegation. [ 27 ] As he admitted to the Court, this allegation is solely an hypothesis.

[ 28 ] No other evidence was adduced by Mr. Maingot to support his claim. [ 29 ] A court cannot render a judgment based on hypothesis [6] . [ 30 ] Therefore, Mr. Maingot’s claim must be dismissed. [ 31 ] In view of the foregoing, both Ms. Wisdom and Mr.

Maingot claims are dismissed. [ 32 ] In these circumstances, both parties will have to support their own costs. [ 33 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 34 ] DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Demand; [ 35 ] DISMISSES Defendant’s Counterclaim; [ 36 ] BOTH PARTIES SUPPORTING THEIR COURT COSTS . __________________________________ Martin Tétreault, J.C.Q. [4] Jean-Louis BAUDOUIN et Patrice DESLAURIERS, La responsabilité civile , 7 e éd., Cowansville, Éditions Yvon Blais, 2007, vol.I, p. 315, par. 1-310; Bou Malhab c. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc. , 2011 CSC, par. 2.