2021 QCCQ 5447, 2021 QCCQ 5447

Zhou v. Ville de Montréal 2021 QCCQ 5447 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-159663-196 DATE: June 8, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HAI TAO ZHOU Plaintiff v.

VILLE DE MONTRÉAL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff is suing defendant city, in damages, following a flood in his basement. [ 2 ] Plaintiff alleges that “the (city) pipes exploded”, and is now claiming: 1. $4,298.70 for the removal of “moisture and mold”; 2. $2,700.00 to “rebuild the water reservoir”; 3. $4,500.00 for “rental loss”; 4. $1,480.00 for “material and car rental”; and 5. $2,000.00 for the “entrance and path construction”. [ 3 ] Defendant alleges, essentially, the following: «3.

La demanderesse allègue avoir subi des dommages à la suite du bris d’une conduite d’eau près de son domicile situé au [...], dans l’arrondissement de Villeray- Saint-Michel - Parc-Extension ; 4. La Ville de Montréal n’est pas responsable des dommages réclamés par le demandeur ;

Malgré toute présomption que pourrait invoquer le demandeur, il n’existe aucun lien causal entre les dommages réclamés et le bris de la conduite d’eau survenu le 7 août 2018 ; 6. Le demandeur a été indemnisé par son assureur. Ce dernier est donc subrogé dans ses droits ; 7. En vertu de l’article 257 de l’annexe « C » de la Charte de la Ville de Montréal, c’est au demandeur à prouver qu’au moment de l’inondation, des soupapes de sûreté en bon état de fonctionnement étaient installées selon les règles de l’art afin de prévenir le refoulement des eaux d’égout de la Ville dans la cave ou le sous-sol de l’immeuble ;

8. À défaut de prouver le bon entretien et le bon fonctionnement desdites installations, aucun droit d’action n’existe contre la municipalité en réclamation de dommages subis à la suite d’une inondation ou d’un refoulement ; 9. Le demandeur n’ayant pas démontré la conformité de ses installations, sa demande est irrecevable ; 10. Le montant réclamé est exagéré et non justifié ; 11. Aucune somme ne peut être imputée à la Ville dans ce dossier ; 12. La Ville de Montréal n’est pas l’assureur du demandeur ; » (contestation, dated June 10, 2019) [ 4 ] At trial, Thomas Aubé, « chef de

section à la voirie des travaux publics », stated, inter alia , as follows : « 1. le 7 août 2018… les employés ont constaté un bris de conduite d’eau : 2. je ne connais pas la cause de la fuite, mais ce n’était pas prévisible; 3. le système de conduites d’eau est entretenu régulièrement par le drainage des bornes fontaine et le relevé de fuites par l’écoute des bornes; 4. je ne sais pas exactement quand le dernier entretien a été fait à cet endroit précis; 5. il y avait 2 pouces d’eau au sous-sol lorsque je suis arrivé; 6. il s’agissait d’une fuite d’eau potable, et non pas d’un refoulement d’égout; il n’y a eu aucun refoulement d’égout. » [ 5 ] Plaintiff received an insurance indemnity of approximately $30,000.00, for the damages sustained to his property (email, exhibit P-8). [ 6 ] The insuror sent a demand letter to defendant, on August 10, 2018, in this regard (letter, exhibit D-3), but never filed suit.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION [ 7 ] The Court must determine whether or not defendant is liable in the present matter. [ 8 ] In virtue of s. 1465 of the Civil Code of Québec , there is a presumption of liability against defendant: 1465 . The custodian of a thing is bound to make reparation for injury resulting from the autonomous act of the thing, unless he proves that he is not at fault. [ 9 ] In order to rebut this presumption, defendant is invoking s. 257

Schedule C of the Charter of the City of Montreal , which states: 257.

Aucune action en dommages-intérêts n’est recevable contre la ville pour dommages résultant de l’inondation d’un immeuble construit après le 28 avril 1939, à moins que le demandeur n’allègue et ne prouve qu’au moment de l’inondation, des soupapes de sûreté en bon état de fonctionnement, étaient installées selon les règles de l’art, en vue de prévenir le refoulement des eaux d’égout de la ville dans les caves ou le sous-sol de cet immeuble. [ 10 ] Given, however, that this action does not concern sewerage back-flow, this provision does not apply in the present instance. [1] [ 11 ] What is more, with the general and generic evidence presented by defendant regarding the state and maintenance of its water system and, more particularly, of these pipes, defendant did not sufficiently prove that the area in question had been reasonably and recently inspected and maintained. [ 12 ] In short, the Court does not find that defendant succeeded in rebutting the presumption of s. 1465 C.C.Q., and therefore concludes that, as custodian of the burst pipe, it stands to be held liable. [ 13 ] Plaintiff, however, failed to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, the alleged damages and the causal link between said damages and defendant’s fault or omission. [ 14 ] As regards parts 1 and 2 of the claim, plaintiff presented neither witness nor proof of payment related to invoices P-2 and P-3.

There is no evidence that the flooding actually caused any damage to the drainage system in the basement. The Court does not know how old the drainage system was; the condition it was in; which repairs were carried out and why. [ 15 ] With regards to the alleged mold, the Court does not know if tests were carried out; what the results were; why the work was allegedly carried out, at a much later date; why it was not covered by the insurance policy; and what work was carried out. [ 16 ] These are all questions which remain unanswered. [ 17 ] As to

part 3 of the claim for rental loss, the tenant did not testify; and, again, there was no explanation as to why no claim was submitted to the insurer. [ 18 ] As to

part 4 of the claim, plaintiff produced no documentary evidence proving that the expenses were actually incurred or that plaintiff actually disbursed the amount claimed. Furthermore, the tenant submitted a claim to defendant, and was paid $500.00 to settle

the alleged loss of $1,480.00 (notice of claim, exhibit D-4). [ 19 ] With regards to the last part of the claim, there is no evidence proving that there is a causal link between the flooding and the alleged damage to the exterior of the building. [ 20 ] The Court does not know what condition the building was in before the flooding, and is left wondering how a leak from the pipe in question could have actually damaged the exterior of this building. [ 21 ] Lastly, plaintiff failed to produce a contract, receipt or proof of payment related to any such work. Plaintiff only submitted an undated and unsigned estimate (exhibit P-5), which proves absolutely nothing. [ 22 ] In

summary, although defendant could have theoretically been found liable for damages directly caused to plaintiff’s property by the flooding, plaintiff utterly failed to prove that there was any such damage (s. 2803 and 2804 C.C.Q .), and, as such, cannot be awarded the damages sought. WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiff's claim, without costs. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: April 27, 2021