2021 QCCQ 648, 2021 QCCQ 648

Collins c. ITM Instruments inc. 2021 QCCQ 648 COURT OF QUEBEC “Small Claims Division” CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU LOCALITY OF GATINEAU “Civil Division” No.: 550-32-701594-191 DATE: February 16, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE D. TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ R. MAXINE COLLINS Plaintiff / Cross-defendant v. ITM INSTRUMENTS INC.

Defendant / Cross-plaintiff ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (On plaintiff’s Rectification Application) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff asks that the undersigned rectify the judgment rendered on February 8, 2021. Basically, the Plaintiff submits that this judgment contains errors and omissions that needs to be corrected. Applicable Law [ 2 ] In principle, once it has rendered its decision, the Court has no longer the jurisdiction to revisit the issues in dispute and modify the judgment rendered [1] .

Therefore, rectification is considered an exception to the principle of stability and finality of judgments. [ 3 ] The rectification is only available in limited circumstances [2] . Those circumstances are set out in

article 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“ CCP ”). This

article allows the Court to correct a judgment containing an error in writing, an error in calculation, or other clerical error. It also allows the Court to correct a judgment which does not rule on part of the application [3] . [ 4 ] This implies that an error with regard to the merit of the issues cannot be corrected in rectifying the judgment. As such, a motion in rectification is not the proper remedy to seek a re-evaluation of the evidence or a reconsideration of legal arguments [4] .

The corrections requested [ 5 ] The corrections requested are the followings: THE PLAINTIFF REQUESTS THE COURT TO ISSUE A CORRECTED DECISION HAVING MADE THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS TO THE SPECIFIED PARAGRAPHS TOGETHER WITH THE INCIDENTAL CORRECTIONS TO THE OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS AS REQUIRED Paragraph 1 – Ms Collins, the cross-defendant, asks the Court to review the clerk’s decision to issue a notice of hearing for the cross- application only scheduled for February 25, 2021, as contrary to the decision of Justice Laflamme notified January 11, 2020 .

Paragraph 7 – On January 7, 2021, the clerk the clerk of the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec issued a manually corrected notice of hearing for the cross-application only scheduled for February 25, 2021, as contrary to the decision of Justice Laflamme notified January 11, 2020. That decision is the subject of this application for review .

Paragraph 16 - Alternatively, if the notice for the hearing scheduled for February 25, 2021, is maintained, Ms Collins asks the Court to direct the clerk to reinstate the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant , i.e.,nullifying the notice filed by the Plaintiff December 10, 2019, effective from the date of decision refusing to quash the call to hearing, and Direct the Court Clerk to issue a new and amended call to hearing stipulating the inclusion of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff’s application filed December 23, 2019, and the Defendant’s cross-demand “if necessary”. [ 6 ] The Tribunal refrains himself on commenting on the accuracy of the corrections requested.

To decide on the Motion, it suffices to conclude that the corrections requested could not be qualified as an error of writing or a clerical error that fall under strict and well- defined conditions emerging from

article 338 C.C.P. [ 7 ] I therefore dismiss, without a hearing and without legal costs, the Request for corrections to Decision Issued - February 8, 2021 .

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Application; WITHOUT LEGAL COSTS. __________________________________ STÉPHANE D. TREMBLAY, J.C.Q.