2013 QCCQ 15410, 2013 QCCQ 15410

Samlal c. Finan 2013 QCCQ 15410 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-128517-119 DATE: December 12, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ JOHN SAMLAL Plaintiff v.

DR EMILE FINAN Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff, John Samlal, claims damages from the Defendant, Dr Emile Finan, a dentist, for having terminated the treatments and because part of those treatments was unsatisfactory.

THE FACTS [ 2 ] In August 2009, the Plaintiff was seen by the Defendant for a chipped tooth. [ 3 ] The Defendant took X-rays and provided the Plaintiff with his opinion and an outline of the treatments to be done [1] . [ 4 ] The Defendant, a prosthodontist, explains that the problems experienced by the Plaintiff resulted from the absence of his back teeth, creating a vertical dimension problem. The Defendant suggested to the Plaintiff that crowns be installed, which was rejected by the Plaintiff because of the costs.

The Defendant suggested that fillings be done and the teeth cleaned. [ 5 ] The Defendant also explained to the Plaintiff that if he was to perform the work, since he was a specialist, the costs would be higher that his colleague, Dr Aubri Marchand. The Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s suggestion and agreed that Dr Marchand do the work. [ 6 ] Today, the Plaintiff complains that the Defendant subcontracted his work to Dr Marchand. [ 7 ] The Plaintiff was provided with an estimate of the treatments [2] to be done and the costs associated thereof. The Plaintiff views this estimate as a contract.

He concludes that the work was not entirely done; therefore, the Defendant illegally put an end to the contract. [ 8 ] He also claims that the cost of the services were higher than what had been quoted. [ 9 ] The last visit by the Plaintiff was on September 17, 2009. [ 10 ] Following this, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with l’Ordre des dentistes du Québec [3] . [ 11 ] On October 18, 2010, l’Ordre des dentistes du Québec informed the Plaintiff of the outcome of its investigation, namely that no professional fault was committed by the Defendant [4] . [ 12 ] In 2012, the Plaintiff was seen by Dr Hubert R.

LaBelle who provided two written reports to the Plaintiff [5] . [ 13 ] When the Plaintiff consulted with Dr LaBelle, he was complaining that the fillings put in by Dr Marchand had fallen off. [ 14 ] Initially, the Plaintiff was claiming $7,000 in damages as appears from the details of the claim [6] . At the hearing, the Plaintiff reduced his claim by $2,625. THE ANALYSIS [ 15 ] The Court has no hesitation in concluding that Plaintiff’s claim is unfounded. [ 16 ] With respect to Plaintiff’s complaint that not all of the treatments were performed, the Defendant admits this.

Moreover, in reviewing the statement of account and invoices [7] , the details of the costs paid by the Defendant and the treatments done [8] , compared

with the outline of the treatments to be done (Exhibit P-1), the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff was not charged for treatments that have not been provided. The Plaintiff did not convince the Court that this had any adverse consequence on his health. [ 17 ] As to his complaint that fillings fell off. This work was done by Dr Marchand who is not implicated in this matter as a defendant. In addition, the Plaintiff cannot allege that the Defendant subcontracted this work to Dr Marchand.

As explained by the Defendant, the Plaintiff accepted that Dr Marchand do the work because she was less expensive that the Defendant. [ 18 ] Moreover, Dr LaBelle, in his report of December 6, 2011, explains why fillings have fallen out: There if an advanced attrition which makes the restoration of teeth 4,1 – 2,1 – 3,2 impossible due to the parafunction, many posterior teeth missing, and a very close bite.

This condition would probably explain why the fillings performed in the past have fallen out . [ 19 ] The Court is satisfied that the work done by the Defendant and by Dr Marchand was satisfactory and the Plaintiff was not overcharged. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action, with costs, in the amount of $118, representing the judicial stamp of the contestation . __________________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: November 26, 2013