2016 QCCQ 13596, 2016 QCCQ 13596

7025645 Canada inc. c. 6988652 Canada inc. 2016 QCCQ 13596 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division N°: 500-32-148198-155 DATE: November 9, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE VINCENZO PIAZZA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ 7025645 canada inc. Plaintiff v. 6988652 canada inc.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ TRANSCRIPTION OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED AT THE HEARING ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff claims $7,000.00 from Defendant for trucking services that it rendered. [ 2 ] The parties agree on a substantial portion of the claim. [ 3 ] The Defendant recognizes that Plaintiff’s claim is well-founded as regards a 3,824-mile trip at a rate of 1.57 per mile for a total of $6,003.68. [ 4 ] The parties also agree that $2,552.63 must be deducted from this amount on account of fuel provided to Plaintiff by the Defendant. [ 5 ] The disagreement between the parties pertains to the following elements: [ 6 ] Plaintiff claims $1,749.52 on account of “missed work” and “missed load”.

Defendant’s representative, Jagdeep Singh, explains that he was promised a cheque by Defendant on two occasions and that he had to decline contracts because he needed to pick up this cheque at Defendant’s place of business, which made him unavailable to drive the Plaintiff’s truck. [ 7 ] This claim is ill-founded. [ 8 ] Plaintiff has not established that Jagdeep Singh needed to pick up the Defendant’s cheque in person instead of delegating someone else to do so. [ 9 ] In light of the evidence, the fact that Mr.

Singh was unavailable to drive Plaintiff’s truck is not a result of Defendant’s fault. [ 10 ] As regards the portion of the claim for a trip from Montreal back to Detroit, to have a load of meat inspected by the border authorities, the testimonies are contradictory. [ 11 ] Mr.

Singh says that Defendant’s representative told him to cross the border and come to Montreal without having this shipment inspected. [ 12 ] Defendant’s representative says he never gave such instructions. [ 13 ] The Court considers that both versions are equally unlikely. [ 14 ] To not have the meat shipment inspected at the border was a stupid decision.

However, the evidence does not establish, on a balance of probability, who between Defendant and Plaintiff made that stupid decision. [ 15 ] As a result, the portion of Plaintiff’s claim relating to that trip back to Detroit will not be granted, nor will the $1,000.00 deduction claimed by Defendant pursuant to the fine imposed by TX Logistics Services in connection with this event [1] . FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the Application in part; CONDEMS 6988652 Canada Inc. to pay $3,451.05 to 7025645 Canada inc. with interest at the legal rate, plus the additional indemnity provided by

article 1619 of the Civil code of Quebec since the filing of the Introductory Application;

WITH LEGAL COSTS in the amount of $21.00 for the notification of Plaintiff’s Demand letters to the Defendant and of $250.00 representing the legal stamp on the Introductory Application. __________________________________ VINCENZO PIAZZA, j.c.q. Date of hearing: November 8, 2016