2013 QCCQ 3077, 2013 QCCQ 3077

Logos Deliverance Ministries of Canada Inc. c. ADT Security Services Canada Inc. 2013 QCCQ 3077 COURT OF QUEBEC "Small Claims Division" CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division N° : 500-32-124574-106 DATE : February 28, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LOGOS DELIVERANCE MINISTRIES OF CANADA INC. Plaintiff v. ADT SECURITY SERVICES CANADA INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] GIVEN the evidence; [ 2 ] WHEREAS a sales contract intervened between the parties, on September 15, 2008 (exhibit D-1); [ 3 ] WHEREAS defendant sold and installed a security system at plaintiff's place of business; [ 4 ] WHEREAS , according to the preponderance of evidence, defendant's installation was faulty and defective (service reports P-1 acknowledge this); [ 5 ] WHEREAS , as a direct result of the defective installation and defendant's failure to rectify the situation forthwith, plaintiff was fined repeatedly, by the City of Montreal, for the false alarms which were generated (exhibit P-3); [ 6 ] WHEREAS defendant had an obligation of result, which it did not fulfill, and is liable for the amount paid by plaintiff, to the City of Montreal, to acquit the fines; [ 7 ] WHEREAS , according to email D-3, it appears that plaintiff was fined a total of $2,870.62 by the City of Montreal; [ 8 ] WHEREAS defendant is liable towards plaintiff for the said amount; [ 9 ] WHEREAS , with regards to the stipulations of limited liability alluded to in the contestation, they are not applicable, as defendant did not prove that plaintiff was aware of them or accepted them at the time the contract was entered into [1] ; [ 10 ] WHEREAS: "[32] Il est de jurisprudence constante que l'une des conditions essentielles à la validité d'une clause de non-responsabilité est qu'elle ait été consentie librement par le contractant auquel on veut l'opposer.

C'est d'ailleurs à la

partie qui l'invoque de prouver que son cocontractant était au courant, a souscrit à la clause en question." [2] [ 11 ] GIVEN

article 1475 of the Civil Code of Quebec ; WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: GRANTS plaintiff's application in part; CONDEMNS defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of $2,870.62, with interest at the rate of 5% per annum and the additional indemnity pursuant to

article 1619 C.C.Q., as of April 15, 2010, and the judicial fees of $176.00. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q.

Date of hearing : January 15, 2013