2011 QCCQ 7034, 2011 QCCQ 7034

Goldberg Bronstein c. Hampstead (Town of) 2011 QCCQ 7034 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-120566-098 DATE: June 20, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LILA GOLDBERG BRONSTEIN, […], Hampstead (Quebec) […] Plaintiff v.

TOWN OF HAMPSTEAD, 5569 Queen-Mary Road, Hampstead (Quebec) H3X 1W5 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] GIVEN the evidence; [ 2 ] WHEREAS, on February 12, 2009, while plaintiff was out of town, a water main broke and caused damage to her property; [ 3 ] WHEREAS defendant dispatched its employees to the scene, on the very same day; [ 4 ] WHEREAS plaintiff returned, on February 21, 2009; [ 5 ] WHEREAS plaintiff sent a written notice of claim to defendant, on March 17, 2009; [ 6 ] WHEREAS, although it was not sent within the required fifteen day period pursuant to s. 585 of the Cities and Towns Act [1] , for reasons which the Court deems sufficient, this did not prevent defendant from sufficiently investigating the site, the damages and the circumstances surrounding the water main break and its liability; [ 7 ] WHEREAS defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of this delay; [ 8 ] WHEREAS, however, plaintiff also failed to institute proceedings against defendant, within the six month period prescribed in s. 585 (5) of the Act , that is to say before August 12, 2009; [ 9 ] WHEREAS, indeed, plaintiff filed her action, on December 9, 2009, at which time her claim was prescribed; [ 10 ] WHEREAS this prescribed period of six months is de rigueur [2] ; [ 11 ] WHEREAS plaintiff alleges that defendant "agreed to extend the delay for prescription", that which is denied by defendant; [ 12 ] WHEREAS plaintiff had the burden of proof (arts. 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Quebec ), in this regard, and failed to meet her burden; [ 13 ] WHEREAS, furthermore, even if that were the case, plaintiff's claim would still be prescribed, for the following reasons: "[10.93] Enfin, mentionnons qu'un fonctionnaire ne peut renoncer au nom de la municipalité à ce délai de déchéance que constitue la prescription de six mois.

Dans Couture c. Ville de Saint-Jean-Chrysostome , C.S. Québec, no 200-05-000800-925, 5 novembre 1992 , j. Jacques Philippon […] La Cour devait conclure que les propos du greffier ne pouvaient pas constituer un acte interruptif de prescription ni une renonciation à la prescription. […] Le fait qu'il y ait eu des pourparlers ou des entretiens téléphoniques entre le demandeur et un représentant de la municipalité ne peut constituer une excuse au fait que le recours a été intenté à l'extérieur du délai de six mois. […]" [3]

WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiff's application, without costs. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: May 16, 2011