2016 QCCQ 3226, 2016 QCCQ 3226

Varma c. Chronopoulos 2016 QCCQ 3226 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-145486-157 DATE: April 28, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY EDWARDS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ANIL VARMA Plaintiff v.

CHRISTOPHER CHRONOPOULOS -and- NIKOLETTA MENDY Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Anil Varma sues Christopher Chronopoulos and Nikoletta Mendy for $15,000 in damages allegedly resulting from the non- return of certain equipment that Mr. Chronopoulos agreed to hold for Mr. Varma in 2003. Mr. Chronopoulos pleads that in 2009, Mr. Varma sold the equipment to a third party. Mr. Chronopoulos claims by Cross-Demand for abuse of procedure against Mr. Varma for the amount of $3,884.48.

Questions in issue 1) Did Christopher Chronopoulos violate his contract of deposit with Anil Varma of the equipment? 2) Is Christopher Chronopoulos’ Cross-Demand for abuse of procedure well founded? Context [ 2 ] In 2002, upon the closing of a restaurant owned by Mr. Varma, namely a “Double Donuts” restaurant on St-Urbain Street in Montreal, Mr. Chronopoulos agreed to allow Mr. Varma, his son-in-law at the time, to store some of the equipment from that restaurant in Mr. Chronopoulos’ garage on Gouin Boulevard, in Pierrefonds, Quebec. From 2002 to March 2015, Mr. Varma was married to Mr.

Chronopoulos’ daughter. [ 3 ] After the divorce settlement was signed in May 2014 but before the divorce was pronounced in March 2015, namely in February 2015, Mr. Varma wrote to Mr. Chronopoulos to request to pick up the stored equipment. According to Mr. Chronopoulos, in 2009 Mr. Varma sold the equipment to Mr. Megaklis Boumis and the equipment was removed at that time. This is denied by Mr. Varma who says the equipment was very valuable in the range of $50,000.

In order to make his claim in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec, he has reduced it to $15,000. [ 4 ] The factual version of events differs significantly between Mr. Varma and Mr. Chronopoulos. The Court must decide which

will be retained based upon the rules of evidence. Analysis and Decision 1) Did Christopher Chronopoulos violate his contract of deposit with Anil Varma of the equipment? [ 5 ] The Court is of the view that based upon the evidence, the more probable version of the events that transpired is the one presented by Mr. Chronopoulos for the two following reasons: [ 6 ] First: The Court asked Mr. Chronopoulos to identify on a standard list of merchandise provided by Mr. Varma for all Double Donuts restaurant what exact equipment was stored in his garage in 2003 by Mr. Varma. In the open Court, Mr.

Chronopoulos impressively went through the five page list [1] and identified the items stored, excluding 80% of the items on the list. On this basis, he showed his honesty in making declarations against his own interest in acknowledging the storage of the other remaining 20% of the items. This evidence supported the truthfulness, reliability and credibility of his testimony. [ 7 ] Second: at the time of the divorce proceedings in 2013, Mr. Varma was required, under oath as to accuracy and completeness, to give a list of his assets [2] .

It is improbable that he would not declare property that was known to his wife and father in law. However, that list does not include any reference to the equipment that Mr. Varma now claims that he owned in 2013. [ 8 ] Accordingly, it is more probable that the equipment was sold by Mr. Varma in 2009, as stated by Mr. Chronopoulos. That would explain why Mr. Varma did not include this equipment, which he states had significant value, in his list of assets. 2) Is Christopher Chronopoulos’ Cross-Demand for abuse of procedure well founded? [ 9 ] Although the situation is borderline, the Court concludes that Mr.

Varma was not in bad faith but simply forgot about the sale by himself of the equipment with respect to which he claimed damages. Accordingly, the Cross-Demand will be dismissed, without costs. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Anil Varma’s Judicial Demand; WITH JUDICIAL COSTS in favour of Christopher Chronopoulos and Nikoletta Mendy limited to the Court Stamp Fee ($190); DISMISSES Christopher Chronopoulos and Nikoletta Mendy’s Cross-Demand; WITHOUT COSTS . __________________________________ Jeffrey Edwards, J.C.Q.

Date of hearing: April 1, 2016