2012 QCCQ 3054, 2012 QCCQ 3054

International Development Corporation (Industrial) Ltd. c. Enviro vision PFR inc. 2012 QCCQ 3054 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-118142-092 500-32-118152-091 DATE: April 12, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (INDUSTRIAL) LTD. Plaintiff v. ENVIRO VISION P.F.R.

INC. and JEAN TURPIN Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized with two actions involving the same parties but for different leases. The Court joined both cases and renders one judgment. [ 2 ] The Plaintiff claims from the Defendants, solidarily, the unpaid rent as well as the reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him to clean and repair the premises. [ 3 ] The Defendants Enviro Vision P.F.R. inc. ( Enviro ) and Jean Turpin ( Turpin ) contest the claim.

As regards the rent, the Defendants state that an agreement was concluded with the Plaintiff, by which the latter agreed to forgo payment for the unpaid rent. As for the expenses incurred to repair the premises, the Defendants state that the repairs they had to do were done. Subsidiarily, the Plaintiff never sent a demand letter prior to incurring the expenses. THE FACTS [ 4 ] On January 8, 2012, a commercial lease [1] was concluded between the parties for the premises located at 6416 Notre-Dame West, in Montreal.

Turpin intervened to the lease to guarantee the obligations of Enviro. [ 5 ] The lease [2] was renewed four times, the last time being on January 17, 2007, for a term expiring on May 31, 2009. [ 6 ] In accordance with the last renewal of the lease, the rent is $500 per month, plus $375 per month for Defendants' share of the building expenses, which after tax totals $987.66. [ 7 ] In 2006, Turpin inquired on the possibility of leasing the premises located in the basement, comprised of an office and a warehouse. These premises bear civic number 6412 Notre-Dame West, in Montreal.

The rent is $350 per month, plus $225 per month for Defendants' share of the building expenses, which after tax totals $649.03. On May 1 st , 2006, a lease is signed by the parties for these premises. [3] [ 8 ] On November 28, 2008, Turpin sends a notice [4] to the Plaintiff informing him that Enviro will not be renewing the lease for the premises located at 6412 and 6416 Notre-Dame West. [ 9 ] When the Defendants vacated the premises, the rent for April and May was owed.

For the premises located at 6416, this represents an amount of $1,975.32 less $875 held by Plaintiff as a security deposit, leaving an outstanding amount of $1,100.32, as appears from the statement dated July 2, 2009. [5] [ 10 ] As for the premises located at 6412, the amount owed is $1,298.06 less $575 as a security deposit, leaving an outstanding

amount of $723.06, as appears from the statement dated July 2, 2009. [6] [ 11 ] When Turpin informed the Plaintiff that he would be vacating the premises, he states that an agreement was concluded with Plaintiff's representative, Jonathan Isenberg, by which the latter informed him he was prepared to forgo the April and May rent. Mr. Isenberg denies this. [ 12 ] On January 14, 2009, Plaintiff acknowledged in writing that the lease would terminate on May 31, 2009.

In this letter, the Plaintiff refers to the clauses of the lease and of Defendants' obligation to leave the premises in a clean and orderly condition and to restore the premises in their original state, less normal wear and tear. [7] [ 13 ] Turpin says that he inspected the premises with Mr. Isenberg and both agreed on the repairs that had to be done by the Defendants. The latter retained the services of Mr. Tertulliani who did all the repairs and cleaned the premises, as he stated in Court. [ 14 ] On the contrary, the Plaintiff states the premises were not cleaned and the repairs not done.

The Plaintiff retained the services of Mr. Pierre DuPaul, who cleaned the premises and did the repairs. For the premises located at 6416, Mr. DuPaul charged $84.66 to clean and $1,828.58 for the repairs [8] . As for 6412, Mr. DuPaul charged $84.66 to clean the premises and $4,345.69 for the repairs. [9] ANALYSIS [ 15 ] With respect to the unpaid rent, the Defendants were unable to substantiate their claim by which an agreement was concluded between the parties regarding the April and May rent for both locations.

If an agreement was concluded, it would have been more prudent for the Defendants to obtain Plaintiff's confirmation in writing. [ 16 ] As for the claim for the cleaning and the repairs, the Plaintiff retained the services of Mr. DuPaul. The cleaning was done in June 2009 and the repairs would have been done sometime in June, as the invoice is dated July 1 st , 2009.

The repairs done at 6416 Notre-Dame West total $1,828.55 and those at 6412 Notre-Dame West total $4,345.69. [ 17 ] First, the Court notes that many of the repairs fall in the category of normal wear and tear and should not have been claimed from the Defendants. The Court also notes that the statements provided by Mr. DuPaul are not supported by invoices, for example, for the material purchased. Parts of the repairs were done by an electrician. At the request of the Court, Mr. DuPaul provided a copy of the electrician's invoice, which the Court identifies as exhibit P-6. The cost of the electrician is $615.17.

Whereas, Mr. DuPaul charges an amount of $795.76, an increase of $180,59 or 30 %. The Court did not have the opportunity of seeing any other invoice. Plaintiff paid the amount claimed by Mr. DuPaul, assuming the Defendants would reimburse him. [ 18 ] Moreover, the Plaintiff could not retain the services of Mr. DuPaul and have the repairs done, without sending a demand letter to the Defendants, as provided by articles 1594 and 1595 of the C ivil Code of Quebec . [ 19 ] This is not a situation were the Defendants are in default by the elapse of time.

The Plaintiff had the obligation to inform the Defendants of the nature of the repairs and of the cost thereof and give to Defendants sufficient delay for them to do the repairs. [10] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS in part Plaintiff's Action; CONDEMNS the Defendants solidarily to pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1,823.38, plus interest at the legal rate as of May 2, 2009; WITH COSTS in the amount of $378 representing the judicial stamp of the Demand. __________________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: March 26, 2012