2011 QCCQ 1405, 2011 QCCQ 1405

Lamhaf c. Houghting 2011 QCCQ 1405 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-115172-092 DATE: February 25, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ISSAM STEVE LAMHAF […] Lasalle (Québec) […] Plaintiff v.

ANGELA HOUGHTING […] Lasalle (Québec) […] Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff claims from the Defendant $ 7,000. representing the moral and physical damages and the financial loss suffered after having been bitten by Defendant's dog. [ 2 ] The Plaintiff provided the Court with photographs showing the dog bite [1] , the police report [2] and the medical record of the treatments received at Verdun Hospital [3] . [ 3 ] The Plaintiff states that he came out on the balcony and was pursued by the dog in the kitchen where he was severely bitten on the leg.

He had to be taken by ambulance to the hospital where 45 stitches were required to close the wound. [ 4 ] There is no question that the attack by the dog was severe. In fact, the Defendant does not deny that her dog bit the Plaintiff. She also admits that her dog, a mix-breed of pitbull and bull terrier was aggressive, protective. [ 5 ] The liability of the Defendant is not in question, as such a dog should have been kept on a leash. [ 6 ] The attack and the fact that the Plaintiff was severely wounded is not in issue.

The dispute concerns the damages claimed by the Plaintiff. [ 7 ] The Plaintiff provided the Court with several invoices for medication [4] . Only two invoices were paid by the Plaintiff for $13.91 and $10.71. The Court will grant this claim totalling $24,62$. [ 8 ] The Court will also grant the claim of $138.94 representing the ambulance fee [5] , as well as $13.25 representing the cost to obtain a copy of the police report [6] . [ 9 ] The Plaintiff claims the financial loss he suffered because he was unable to return to work. [ 10 ] The incident occurred in April 2008.

At the hearing, the Plaintiff could not clearly describe the type of work he was doing at the time, who his employer was and since when he was working for this employer. [ 11 ] He states he was working 40 hours a week at $10.00 an hour. [ 12 ] Amina Lamhaf, the Plaintiff's mother, testified that, at the time the Plaintiff was a student who was working part time at night for UPS.

[ 13 ] In his demand letter [7] , the Plaintiff states he was prevented from working for a period of four months. At Court, he testified it was for six months.

From the two medical reports [8] , it would be 14 months. [ 14 ] Alexandra Houghting, Defendant's sister, testified that in early June 2008, she saw the Plaintiff working in a car wash. [ 15 ] Rashida Desmond testified in writing [9] that she also saw the Plaintiff working in July 2008. [ 16 ] Considering the lack of documentary evidence as to the Plaintiff's employment and the contradictory evidence as to the nature of the work and the delay during which the Plaintiff would have been prevented from working, the Court will not award any damages for financial loss. [ 17 ] The Plaintiff also claims, without quantifying the amount, damages for pain and suffering. [ 18 ] He testified that he was in severe pain for several months.

However, he only took pain medication for one month [10] and during his last visit at Verdun Hospital, Dr Beaudoin, who examined the Plaintiff, notes that the wound had healed well and there was far less tenderness. [ 19 ] Alexandra Houghting and Rashida Desmond also testified that they saw the Plaintiff during the summer and that he was not walking with crutches, was using a bicycle and was rollerblading. [ 20 ] These testimonies clearly contradict the Plaintiff's own testimony that he had to walk with crutches for several months. [ 21 ] Notwithstanding this contradictory evidence, the Court concludes that the dog bite was quite severe, that the Plaintiff had to receive 45 stitches to close the wound and that he did take pain medication for at least one month. [ 22 ] The Plaintiff did experience pain and suffering and an inconvenience resulting from the attack.

The Court determines that an amount $ 1,000. would be adequate compensation. [ 23 ] As to the Plaintiff's fear of animals, he did not elaborate on this matter. [ 24 ] In

summary, the Court concludes that an amount of $1,176.81 represents an adequate compensation for the damages suffered. The Court will also grant interest as of the date of the demand letter. The Plaintiff's demand letter is not dated. However, Defendant's attorney replied to it on December 16, 2008. The Court will grant interest as of December 15, 2008. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS in part Plaintiff's action; CONDEMNS Defendant to pay to Plaintiff the sum of $ 1,176,81 plus the interest and the additional indemnity provided at

Article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec , as of December 15, 2008; WITH COSTS in the amount of $155. representing the judicial stamp of the claim. __________________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing : February 7, 2011