2016 QCCQ 17959, 2016 QCCQ 17959

Najneen c. Ville de Montréal 2016 QCCQ 17959 COURT OF QUEBEC « Small Claims Division» « Pratique » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL « Civil Division» N° : 500-32-153086-162 DATE : October 27, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DOMINIQUE VÉZINA, J.C.Q. ___________________________________________________________________ FARHANA NAJNEEN Plaintiff c.

VILLE DE MONTRÉAL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Farhana Najneen (Mrs Najneen) is claiming 15 000 $ from Ville de Montréal (the City) for damages to her property caused by the roots of a tree. [ 2 ] The City presents a demand to have the case dismissED in view of

article 585 of the Cities and Towns Act [1] (CTA), alleging that the right of the action of Mrs Najneen, if any, is prescribed. QUESTION IN ISSUE Is the City well founded to raise the limitation period and to ask for the dismissal of the demand?

CONTEXT AND ANALYSIS [ 3 ] On her application to the Small Claims Division, Mrs Najneen refered to a recurring problem where the washroom toilet of the basement would blocked every two, three months. [ 4 ] She linked the problem to the presence of the City’s tree and its roots. [ 5 ] She complained and called the City on numerous occasions. [ 6 ] At the hearing for the present demand, Mrs Najneen confirmed that the problem was noticed since 2012 [2] . [ 7 ] On January 2016, a plumber [3] checked the piping system in Mrs Najneen’s house with a camera.

The fact that the Company was busy at that time of the year is not a reason deemed sufficient. According to Mrs Najneen, it was at that time that she had the evidence that it was caused by the City’s tree. [ 8 ]

Article 585 of the ( CTA ) reads as follows: 585.

(1) If any person claim or pretend to have suffered bodily injury by any accident, for which he intends to claim damages from the municipality, he shall, within 15 days from the date of such accident, give or cause to be given notice in writing to the clerk of the municipality of such intention, containing the particulars of his claim, and stating the place of his residence, failing which the municipality shall be relieved from any liability for any damages caused by such accident, any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding.

(2) In case of any claim for damages to property, movable or immovable, a similar notice shall also be given to the clerk of the municipality, within 15 days , failing which the municipality shall not be liable for any damages, any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding. […]

(4) The failure to give such notice shall not, however, deprive any victim of such accident of his right of action, if he prove that he was prevented from giving such notice for any reason deemed sufficient by the court or judge. […]

(5) No action in damages shall lie unless such action be instituted within six months after the day on which the accident happened or the right of action accrued. […] (our underlining) [ 9 ] Mrs Najneen sent her notice to the City on May 20, 2016. [ 10 ] The notice within 15 days is a necessary precondition as it is for the delay of 6 months [4] .

The ignorance of the law cannot justify the absence of action by Mrs Najneen in due time [5] . [ 11 ] Mrs Najneen has filed her demand on June 30, 2016. [ 12 ] The damages as claimed qualify as an “acident “. [ 13 ] Based on these facts, the damages must have occurred on the latest on December 30, 2015. [ 14 ] The Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, is not an equity Court [6] . [ 15 ] Rules of evidence must be respected [7] : [34] D'autre part, la volonté de faire de la division des petites créances un forum dépouillé de formalisme, peu coûteux, afin d'assurer une justice expéditive ne signifie pourtant pas qu'il faille s'éloigner des règles prétoriennes applicables ni d'une certaine prudence dans des matières complexes qui nécessitent une analyse plus étendue.

Le pouvoir du juge de procéder lui-même aux interrogatoires et d'apporter à chacun une aide équitable et impartiale, de façon à faire apparaître le droit et d'en assurer la sanction, ne signifie pas non plus que le juge doive se transformer en expert et faire la preuve des parties. (references omitted) [ 16 ] The action or Mrs Najneen agains the City is dismiss. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the demand of Defendant Ville de Montréal. DISMISSES the action of Farhana Najneen against Defendant Ville de Montréal; WITHOUT LEGAL COSTS. __________________________________ DOMINIQUE VÉZINA , J.C.Q.

Date of trial: October 17, 2016 DV CHECK REFERENCES