2011 QCCQ 2405, 2011 QCCQ 2405

Isaac c. Listuguj Police Department 2011 QCCQ 2405 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BONAVENTURE LOCALITY OF CARLETON-SUR-MER Civil Division No: 145-32-001929-112 DATE: March 22, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE JEAN BÉCU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ KRISTY ISAAC, Plaintiff v.

LISTUGUJ POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ DECISION ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff claims 5 000 $ from Defendant because its police officers gave support and assistance to a bailiff executing a writ of seizure before judgment for the repossession of a vehicle belonging to a creditor, Ally Crédit Canada Limitée.

She asserts that, according to the Indian Act [1] , the vehicle was not seizable because it was situated on Listiguj Reserve, and that because of Defendant's illegal involverment, she is deprived of her car. [ 2 ] As explained to the parties at the hearing, the claim is groundless. [ 3 ] On one side, the car did not belong to Plaintiff but to her creditor, according to a contract of sale by installment plan providing the creditor owns the automobile until full and final payment. [ 4 ] Plaintiff agrees the car was not totally paid for. [ 5 ] Therefore,

section 89 of the Indian Act cannot apply in this mater because the car is not a real and personnal property of an Indian even if it is situated on a reserve. [ 6 ] On the other side, a bailiff serving notice of a legal procedure on a person may require assistance from police officers, if necessary, and they must assist him as part of their duties. [ 7 ] When Defendant's police officers gave assistance to the bailiff who was repossessing the vehicle in the name of the creditor, under a writ of seizure before judgment issued by a Court clerk, they were acting in the execution of their duties. [ 8 ] They did not cause any damage or prejudice to Plaintiff. [ 9 ] Consequently, Plaintiff's application would be dismissed. [ 10 ] Taking into account that Defendant's contestation was filed only on March 16, 2011, close to one month after the prescribed time, Plaintiff will not bear Defendant's costs.

FOR THESE RAISONS, THE COURT : [ 11 ] DISMISSES Plaintiff's application, without cost . __________________________________ JEAN BÉCU Judge of the Québec Court

Date of hearing: March 21, 2011