2023 QCCQ 1926, 2023 QCCQ 1926

Roberts c. Gendron 2023 QCCQ 1926 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-714448-216 500-32-714455-211 DATE: April 5, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ 500-32-714448-216: MICHAEL ROBERTS Plaintiff v. GINETTE GENDRON Defendant 500-32-714455-211: MICHAEL ROBERTS Plaintiff v.

LUC ASSELIN Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT RENDERED FROM THE BENCH ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This is the continuation of a hearing which took place on January 10, 2023. [ 2 ] At that time, the Court learned that plaintiff was also suing one Luc Asselin in another file. [ 3 ] Deeming the two proceedings related, the Court ordered that both be consolidated and tried at the same time and determined on the same evidence in accordance with s. 210 of the Civil Code of Procedure. [ 4 ] The Court also ordered Asselin to file his contestation and exhibits by no later than February 10, 2023, and pay the corresponding judicial fees, that which he did not do. [ 5 ] Asselin is physically present this morning, but confirmed that he did not file a contestation.

The Court therefore proceeded by default in his case. A. ROBERTS v. GENDRON – 500-32-714448-216 [ 6 ] In the matter of Roberts v. Gendron, plaintiff is suing defendant for $ 5,000.00, alleging “renovations, car loan, general house expenses” in paragraph 1 of his claim. [ 7 ] In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the claim, plaintiff alleges the following: 7. Le montant total de la reclamation de la

partie demandresse se détaille comme suit : Charges related to watchig my mother who is 90

yrs old can’’t be left alone lying about receipts,collaborating o possible sabotage committed by Mr. Asselin. Mr. Asselin. 8. Aux faits mentionnés ci-dessus, la

partie demanderesse apporte les précisions suivantes : work charged to me by roommate for work not carried out by Mr.Asselin. Falsifying bills along with Mr.Asselin. (sic) [ 8 ] These allegations are incomprehensible. [ 9 ] What is more, at trial, and more specifically at the hearing of January 10, 2023, as well as today’s hearing, plaintiff’s rambling testimony was, more often than not, unintelligible, convoluted, incomprehensible, confused and confusing.

In other words, plaintiff was practically impossible to follow and understand. [ 10 ] Plaintiff failed to meet his burden and prove fault, damages and a causal link between the two, according to a preponderance of evidence ( s. 2803 and 2804 Civil Code of Quebec ). [ 11 ] Plaintiff did not prove that he lent defendant $ 5,000.00.

Rather, it appears from the preponderance of evidence, namely defendant’s credible testimony and the credible, clear and detailed written testimony of defendant’s daughter Erika Gendron Cater, that it was defendant who lent plaintiff $ 5,000.00 and not the contrary. [ 12 ] In fact, at the hearing of January 10, 2023, plaintiff admitted as much, when he clearly stated, “She lent me $ 5,000.00 in 2014”; and also stated, “We were even”, thereby confirming that defendant did and does not owe him any money. [ 13 ] Plaintiff was also unsure and confused as to when the alleged events occurred, including when he would have lent defendant money, probably because he never did.

Be that as it may, in the end, there was no credible evidence to support his allegations. [ 14 ] The evidence adduced was also to the effect that plaintiff harassed and threatened defendant and Asselin; that defendant reported plaintiff to the police on several occasions, because she was afraid of him; and that plaintiff sent defendant’s daughter a series of distasteful, concerning, rambling and, at times, vulgar texts (exhibit D-10). [ 15 ] In short, plaintiff did not prove his allegations.

He produced no witnesses or credible documentary evidence, such as receipts or acknowledgements of debt, in support thereof. His claim is simply not believable, and is patently unfounded. B. ROBERTS v. ASSELIN – 500-32-714455-211 [ 16 ] In the matter of Roberts v. Asselin, plaintiff’s $ 15,000.00 claim is equally unintelligible. [ 17 ] Paragraph 1 of the claim reads as follows: 1. La

partie demanderesse poursuit la

partie défenderesse pour les raisons suivantes : Mr.Asselin disconnected light fixture ad crossed wires when reinstalling it creating a short that needed repair by electrica $150.Cutting of ground wires in junction boxes before foaming of walls(sabotage?). $1300 for work not completed falsified receipts,for work not to be paid by me.Over charged for what he did. threated my life.Min 20 hrs over 6months period even after sending registered letters with no reply. (sic) [ 18 ] Plaintiff was unable to explain or prove his claim, according to a preponderance of evidence; and, once again, his testimony was rambling and convoluted. [ 19 ] Although defendant did not file a contestation, the essence of plaintiff’s claim remained nebulous and unsubstantiated by any credible evidence.

WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: Roberts v. Gendron - 500-32-714448-216 DISMISSES plaintiff's application, with legal costs in the amount of $106.00; Roberts v. Asselin - 500-32-714455-211 DISMISSES plaintiff's application.

__________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Dates of hearing: January 10 and April 5, 2023