2023 QCCQ 3691, 2023 QCCQ 3691

Perillo c. As de la Rénovation FBV inc. 2023 QCCQ 3691 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-708123-197 500-32-708282-191 DATE: May 25, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ 500-32-708123-197: ANGELA PERILLO Plaintiff v.

LES AS DE LA RÉNOVATION FBV INC. and MAURICE MEUNIER and DANNY BOURASSA Defendants and FRANCIS VÉGIARD Intervenor _________________________________ 500-32-708282-191: CONDO LOUIS HAINAULT 8620-28 Plaintiff v.

LES AS DE LA RÉNOVATION FBV INC. and MAURICE MEUNIER and DANNY BOURASSA Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The above proceedings were consolidated, tried at the same time and determined on the same evidence (s. 210 Code of Civil Procedure). [ 2 ] In the Angela Perillo (“Angela”) file (“AP file”), plaintiff is suing defendants for damages allegedly caused to her property, following water infiltration which occurred in 2017. [ 3 ] In the Condo Louis Hainault 8620-28 file (“Condo file”), plaintiff is suing defendants for damages allegedly caused to its property, following water infiltration which occurred in 2017. [ 4 ] Strangely, Angela’s brother Geraldo Perillo (“Geraldo”), who does not live in the condo or the building and is not part of the Syndicate, signed and filed both proceedings, because “he had time on his hands”. [ 5 ] In fact, after the first day of trial, the Court ordered both Angela and the Syndicate to refile the proceedings and sign same themselves, that which they did. [ 6 ] On July 13, 2022, Angela also amended the amount of her claim.

The initial amount was $15,000.00. It was reduced to $11,336.65, and broken-down as follows: a) $4,179.34 paid to Les constructions Landucci inc. (“Landucci”); b) $574.88 paid to Exxum; c) $447.28 paid to Plomberie Copa inc. (“Copa”);

d) $297.79 paid to 1-800-GOT-JUNK; e) $632.36 paid to Inspotech Inc. and f) $5,00.00 for pain and suffering, as well as trouble and inconvenience. [ 7 ] On July 19, 2022, the Syndicate, who was initially claiming $15,000.00, reduced its claim to $13,179.46.The

schedule attached to the claim is unintelligible and does not explain this amount, other than to mention an amount of $1,287.4 paid to “Toitures Hogue” and an unspecified amount paid to “DMJ Construction”. [ 8 ] At trial, defendant Bourassa discontinued his suit against intervenor Végiard. [ 9 ] On May 10, 2023, at the reopening of the hearing, Perillo amended her claim, yet again, to $6,582.43, and the Syndicate its claim to over $13,000.00.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS [ 10 ] The evidence presented to the Court in support of the claims presents major challenges. [ 11 ] As prepared and filed by Geraldo, the evidence is both confused and confusing. [ 12 ] The Court had no way of deciphering which expenses were incurred by which plaintiff and for what. [ 13 ] The plaintiffs’ names were used interchangeably; and, although it was the Syndicate who mandated Les As de la Rénovation FBV inc. (“FBV”) to do the work related to the problem of infiltration, both the Syndicate and Angela paid the bills.

Some of the bills were issued to the Syndicate and others to Angela; but, as stated by Angela’s lawyers themselves in their demand letters dated September 25, 2018, the contract for the work at bar was entered into between the Syndicate, not Angela, and FBV: […] Comme vous le savez parfaitement, le ou vers le 16 novembre 2017, suite à une infiltration d’eau, le syndicat des copropriétaires Les condos 8620-28 Louis Hainault (ci-après le « Syndicat »), vous mandata afin que vous procédiez à des travaux visant l’étanchéisation de l’enveloppe du bâtiment, notamment en procédant à la réfection de la membrane d’imperméabilisation de la toiture et à la correction de l’infiltration émanant de la porte patio de l’unité de notre cliente.

Bien que le mandat fût émis par le Syndicat, c’est en fait notre cliente qui a assumé le coût des travaux en plus d’avoir coordonné avec vous leurs réalisation. […] (exhibit P-5) [ 14 ] Accordingly, Angela does not have sufficient interest to sue FBV (s. 85 Code of Civil Procedure).

If she paid some of the bills for the Syndicate, her recourse for reimbursement is against the Syndicate, not FBV. [ 15 ] It should be noted that, at trial, Geraldo stated that the Syndicate, which he deems to be “incompetent”, “washed its hands” of the matter and did not want to sue FVB. [ 16 ] Having “time on (his) hands”, Geraldo took it upon himself to sue left and right. [ 17 ] What is more, Angela stated that her insurer paid for some of her expenses related to the claim. [ 18 ] Angela stated that her insurer paid $818.62 for Landucci’s work. [ 19 ] Suddenly, on July 13, 2022, Landucci’s fees increased to $4,179.34 as at July 7, 2022.

This, of course, is inadmissible, as the damages should have been calculated as at February 14, 2019, the date of the originating claim. [ 20 ] Then, at the reopening of the hearing, Angela announced that she was no longer claiming these fees. [ 21 ] What is more, after the Court ordered that Angela file evidence of her insurance claim related to this matter, documents from Contact Insurance Company were filed; and is has now come to light that Angela received at least two payments, one in the amount of $5,562.94 (cheque no. 4042934) and another in the amount of $1,279.38 (cheque no. 4040230).

Angela’s testimony was therefore misleading, as were the proceedings and the evidence as prepared and filed by Geraldo. [ 22 ] Furthermore, all of the damages described in the « Préjudice Moral »

section of

Schedule C, amounting to $5,000.00, were penned by Geraldo, but not described by Angela at trial. [ 23 ] Angela stated that she was claiming $11,200.00 for moral damages in order “to get to $15,000.00”, i.e. the maximum amount allowed in the Small Claims Division. [ 24 ] This part of the claim clearly lacks substance, truthfulness and integrity. [ 25 ] Furthermore, the cause of the infiltration also remained undetermined, as there was contradicting evidence between Charles- Alexandre Durocher and Végiard, who represented Maurice Meunier. [ 26 ] Be that as it may, in the end, given that Angela never had sufficient interest to bring a judicial application against FBV, her claim must be denied. [ 27 ] Moreover, the Court wishes to add that the claim against Bourassa is unfounded, as he was merely an employee of FBV, and

there was never, therefore, any lien de droit between Angela and Bourassa. [ 28 ] The same holds true for Meunier, who is now deceased, but was president of FVB at the time. [ 29 ] As regards the Syndicate’s claim against FVB, the evidence remains nebulous. [ 30 ] Geraldo’s presentation of this case was as disorganized and difficult to discern, as it was in Angela’s case. [ 31 ] The alleged fault remained unproven ( s. 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Quebec ). [ 32 ] According to Durocher, the cause of the infiltration was « vices de construction qui constituent des défectuosités dans l’ouvrage dues au non-respect par l’entrepreneur des règles de l’art ou des normes en vigueur » (report, exhibit P-4A, page 18). [ 33 ] However, according to Bourassa and Végiart, who did not agree with Durocher, the drainage system on the roof was at the root of the problem. [ 34 ] Given that Durocher relied heavily on the information provided by Angela and Geraldo, and given that Angela and Geraldo have no credibility in the Court’s eyes, the evidence regarding fault is insufficient. [ 35 ] Lastly, there is no lien de droit between the Syndicate and Bourassa, nor between the Syndicate and Meunier, respectively employee and director of FVB.

WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES Angela Perillo’s claim, as amended, with legal costs; and DISMISSES Condo Louis Hainault 8620-28’s claim, as amended, with legal costs. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Dates of hearing: February 23, 2022, and May 10, 2023