2013 QCCQ 326, 2013 QCCQ 326

Yang c. Yang 2013 QCCQ 326 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-123120-109 DATE: JANUARY 15, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE JULIE VEILLEUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SHAO TAO YANG Plaintiff v.

HONG LIANG YANG Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff claims an amount of $3,238 for work performed on Defendant's roof. THE CONTEXT [ 2 ] The parties met a first time to discuss the condition of the roof of Defendant's home located on Oligny Street, in Brossard, in the early spring of 2010. At Plaintiff’s second visit to Defendant’s home, the parties decided that the roof had to be changed.

According to Plaintiff, the parties agreed upon the following price: $1.50 per square foot, the square footage was then approximate. According to Defendant, the price agreed upon was rather of $1,500 after negotiations. [ 3 ] Anyhow, Plaintiff and his employees showed up at Defendant's home on April 24, 2010 to remove the old shingles of the roof and put new ones on. According to Plaintiff, the work was done as planed and the costs for nails, machine rental and labour total $3,238. On May 5, 2010, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter of default.

Defendant answered same denying owing Plaintiff the amount claimed adding that the estimated price of $1.50 per square foot was for a total square footage which led to an agreement that the work would be done for $1,500. Defendant also complained of a poor job and inadequate clean-up of the debris. [ 4 ] Plaintiff's proof relies on his testimony as no written contract was signed with Defendant regarding the price agreed upon. ANALYSIS [ 5 ] Plaintiff has the onus of demonstrating by preponderant proof that his claim is well founded as per Sections 2803 and 2804 C.c.Q .: 2803.

A person wishing to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. A person who alleges the nullity, modification or extinction of a right shall prove the facts on which he bases his allegation. 2804.

Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. [ 6 ] The proof offered by Plaintiff at the hearing is supported by his own testimony but contradicted by Defendant's testimony. [ 7 ] Although Defendant does not deny that the work has been done and although he complains of marginal and minor problems related to the roof, he nevertheless benefits from the removal of the old roof and the installation of a new one, work performed by Plaintiff and his employees. [ 8 ] In view of the proof offered, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not prove that the parties have agreed to unspecified square footage prior to the beginning of the work and that Defendant owes Plaintiff an amount of $1,500.

In view of the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff's claim in part. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS Shao Tao Yang's claim in part;

CONDEMNS Hong Liang Yang to pay Shao Tao Yang an amount of $1,500 plus interest at the legal rate together with the additional indemnity as per

Section 1619 C.c.Q. as of May 5, 2010; THE WHOLE, with costs ($129). __________________________________ JULIE VEILLEUX, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: December 4, 2012