2011 QCCQ 10317, 2011 QCCQ 10317

9008-7420 Québec inc. (Sambra Sales & Service) c. 3878511 Canada inc. (Promecanix inc.) 2011 QCCQ 10317 COUR DU QUÉBEC « Division des petites créances » CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE LAVAL LOCALITÉ DE LAVAL « Chambre civile » N° : 540-32-017826-064 DATE : 2011-09-12 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE RAOUL P. BARBE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ 9008-7420 QUÉBEC INC., f.a.s. SAMBRA SALES & SERVICE , 4589, 9 e rue, Laval, Qc H7W 1Y9 demanderesse c. 3878511 CANADA INC., f.a.s.

PROMECANIX INC. , 3485 Griffith, Montréal, Qc H4T 1W5 défenderesse ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Par une demande judiciaire signifiée le 28 septembre 2006, la demanderesse réclame 6 848,47 $ pour marchandises vendues et livrées. L'audition a lieu le 6 mai 2011. Les faits [ 2 ] La demanderesse 9008-7420 Québec inc., immatriculée au Registre des entreprises en 1994, vend des articles en papier et carton. Son actionnaire majoritaire et son président est monsieur Pearl Herscovitch.

Son admnistrateur est Perry Samberg qui représente la compagnie à l'audition. Elle fait affaire sous le nom de « Vente et services Sambra ». [ 3 ] La défenderesse 3878511 Canada inc. est une compagnie constituée en 2001 pour faire de la fabrication et du réusinage de pièces d'automobiles. 3968057 Canada ltée en est l'actionnaire majoritaire. Monsieur Werner Baerlocher en est le président et trésorier; monsieur Raymond Gravel en est le vice-président. Elle fait affaire sous le nom de Promecanix. [ 4 ] Les parties ont commencé à avoir des relations d'affaires en 2001.

Entre 2001 et 2002, les livraisons et les paiements se faisaient régulièrement. À l'audition, la demanderesse déclare : « defendant refuses to pay for merchandise delivered as her statement enclosed » et elle dépose en liasse l'état de compte. [ 5 ] La défenderesse, dans sa contestation, donne les explications suivantes : « 1) In September 2005 , we received a statement indicating we owed Sambra $ 6,848.47 and in November 2005 we received a new statement which had grown to $ 14,997.87. (Attach 1) 2) Attached is a statement from September, 2005 showing a credit of $ 1,501.08.

This credit was issued after we refused to pay this amount, since it was never received, in December 2005 and does not appear in the SAMBRA statement dated November 1, 2005 . (Attach 2) 3) In November SAMBRA came to see us and tell us we are owed them $ 14,997.87 as per attached statement. (See attach 1 and 2) 4) PROMECANIX agree to pay for all invoice from 2004 and 2005 (except for $ 1501.08 which we never received). We paid $ 6,648.34 by check (attach 3). 5) It was very clear that this was in final statement of all claims from SAMBRA with whom we do not deal anymore (Last shipment received October 26, 2004).

SAMBRA agreed. 6) On September 19, 2006 we received a letter from SAMBRA expecting payment for 2002 and 2003. The letter is dated August

25, 2006 and gives us until September 15, 2006 to pay. The letter was sent on September 19, 2006. SAMBRA started their legal action on September 20, 2006. Why did SAMBRA wait 9 months before starting the procedures? In these 9 months we never heard from them. (Attach 4) 7) Additionally all these claims date back to more than 3 years, therefore there is prescription on these supposed shipments. » [ 6 ] À l'audition, la défenderesse trace l'historique des relations entre les parties : « The dates we refer to are the dates on the documents, they are NOT THE DATES WHEN PROMECANIX RECEIVED THEM.

If we look at the "detailed activity report dated SEPT. 11, 2006 […], it shows we had a normal business relationship from the beginning of PROMECANIX in 2001 until approx. The end of 2002. We received our invoices on a regular base and we paid them regularly. After that, according to this statement, invoices were issued "en bloc" along time after the shipments had been made. PROMECANIX moved to a New location between Mai and July 2004 and unfortunately a lot of documents have been lost and misplaced during this move.

It is therefore impossible for PROMECANIX to go back and "rebuild" what happened between SAMBRA and PROMECANIX. The business relationship between SAMBRA and PROMECANIX finished in MAY 2005 . 2005 In October or November 2005 […], SAMBRA came to us and told us that we owed them $ 8,149.40 as per Invoice 019212 dated Sept. 5 2005 . This invoice was for shipments apparently made in 2004 and 2005. We could prove that one shipment was note made and received a credit of $ 1,501.08.

We agreed to pay $ 6,648.34 as a final settlement and a check for this amount was issued on January 10 2006 . 2006 In January or February 2006, SAMBRA came back to us and told us that, after we paid them $ 7,648.34 on JAN. 10 2006 , we owed them more money from way back in 2003 and 2004. Our first reaction was : how come you didn't tell us about these unpaid invoices before. We told SAMBRA that we had negotiated a final settlement with them and for us the case was closed. They presented us with various statements which obviously had been manipulated : Statement of SEPT. 26, 2005 […].

This statement shows that we owe SAMBRA $ 6,848.47 for shipments supposedly made in 2003 and 2004. It does not show the $ 8,149.40 for shipments supposedly made in 2004 and 2005 and supposedly invoiced on Sept. 5, 2005. Or maybe this statement was made after we received the credit of $ 1,501.08 and paid the $ 6,648.34 on JAN. 10, 2006 . Statement of NOV. 1, 2005 […] This statement now shows that we supposedly owe SAMBRA a total of $ 14,997.87. On this statement, the amount of $ 8,149.40 suddenly has appeared but is not on the statement of SEPT. 26, 2005 above.

In February 2006, we told SAMBRA the following #1 If we owed you $ 14,997.87 why didn't you tell us when we negotiated the final settlement. #2 We would have never paid you the $ 6,648.34 had we known that we supposedly owed you more money since we were not even sure we owed you this amount and settled to finalize and avoid any litigation. #3 We feel that SAMBRA has manipulated the statements and we do not believe that we owe SAMBRA any more monies. After this we didn't hear anything from SAMBRA until September 2006 when we received a registered letter. […] August 25, 2006 : Date the letter was written ?

September 15, 2006 : Date given to PROMECANIX to respond. September 19, 2006 : Date the letter was really posted (date on envelope). The letter was posted 4 days after the deadline given to PROMECANIX to respond. Finally, this legal action taken by SAMBRA is on shipments made in 2003 and 2004, over 3 years before. Isn't there prescription after 3 years ? » Analyse et motifs [ 7 ] L'

article 2803 du Code civil du Québec énonce la règle concernant le fardeau de la preuve : 2803. Celui qui veut faire valoir un droit doit prouver les faits qui soutiennent sa prétention. […] 2803. A person wishing to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. […]

[ 8 ] L'

article 2804 du Code civil du Québec codifie la règle de la prépondérance : 2804. La preuve qui rend l'existence d'un fait plus probable que son inexistence est suffisante, à moins que la loi n'exige une preuve plus convaincante. 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 ] En l'espèce, la preuve de la demanderesse s'est avérée confuse et cette dernière n'a pas relevé son fardeau de preuve. [ 10 ] Notons, bien que cela ne constitue pas un motif de jugement, qu'il s'agit d'une action intentée en 2006, pour laquelle deux demandes de remise furent faites par la demanderesse.

De plus, le 19 septembre 2006, date inscrite sur l'enveloppe de la lettre enregistrée, démontre que la lettre fut postée quatre jours après l'échéance donnée à Promecanix pour y répondre. PAR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL : [ 11 ] REJETTE la demande de la

partie demanderesse avec des frais de 182 $ . __________________________________ RAOUL P. BARBE, J.C.Q. Date d’audience : 2011-05-06