2013 QCCQ 10358, 2013 QCCQ 10358

Medical Logistics Management Inc. (Airevac international Inc.) c. CanAssistance 2013 QCCQ 10358 COURT OF QUEBEC Division Pratique CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL TOWN OF MONTRÉAL N°: 500-22-204108-131 DATE : September 3, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARTINE L. TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ medical logistics management inc. doing business as airevac international inc. Plaintiff vs.

CANASSISTANCE and ROBERT BRADLEY COLEMAN Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Defendant Canassistance (" Canassistance ") submits a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Action on the ground that Plaintiff has no interest (article 165(3) of Code of Civil Procedure (" C.C.P.

"), and that there is no lien de droit between Canassistance and Plaintiff even if the facts alleged are true (article 165(4) C.C.P.). [ 2 ] The Amended Motion to Introduce Legal Proceedings alleges, inter alia , that in January 2013, Plaintiff provided air ambulance services in Costa Rica, to the infant of Defendant Robert Bradley Coleman (" Mr. Coleman "). He presented Plaintiff with a document (P- 3) entitled " Confirmation ", with the logos and names: Blue Cross, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and indicating the number of a medical plan contract. [ 3 ] Prior to his child's transportation, Mr.

Coleman executed a " Consent to transport and care " (P-2), containing the following: " STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY I understand that there is no commitment of financial assistance from any third party, including but not limited to insurance companies. Medicare, Medicaid, employers, health care service plans, or workers compensation carriers.

I further understand and signify by my signature that I will be responsible for payment of any provided services not covered by the applicable third party, including those charges deemed "not medically reasonable and necessary" by medicare or any other insurance carrier. I promise to pay all interest, penalties, service charges and reasonable attorney/court fees incurred in collection of the account to the maximum allowed by the law.

AUTHORIZATION TO PAY INSURANCE BENEFITS I authorize payment directly to Medical Logistics Management Inc. and all physicians for fees, which relate to this period of emergency care, transportation and hospitalization." [ 4 ] Plaintiff, who operates under the name " Air Evac " and " Air Evac International " (P-0.1), completed and forwarded to Defendant Canassistance a " Health insurance claim form " (P-4.1) for $62,760. [ 5 ] On June 4, 2013, Canassistance issued a cheque to the order of Plaintiff, for the amount of $0.00 USD, that was attached to a document (P-5) bearing the logo and name CanAssistance; indicating that Mr.

Coleman's son was the "Claimant/Insured" and Mr. Coleman, the "Policyholder"; comprising a

section "Calculation of benefits" with columns entitled "submitted", "excluded" and "deductible"; and stipulating the following remark: "01 patient: coleman robert w acct: cole112512 following the analysis of invoice no: cole112512 , taking into account the type of service, transport and distance, these charges are not considered reasonable and customary. we reviewed pass ( sic) invoices for the same type of service and distance which the rates varied between $7000 & $9000 usd and conclude that airevac international dba medical logistics management is charging us nine (9) times what we have paid in the pass ( sic) for the same services. thus, we can not agree to pay the requested amount, should you modify pricing to reasonable and customary charges for this type of transport, we will gladly reopen the case." [ 6 ] At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must be cautious prior to dismissing an action.

[ 7 ] Plaintiff claims that its interest resides in the contractual relationship that was established when Mr. Coleman requested Plaintiff's services. According to Plaintiff, it can invoke the rules of delegation, under articles 1667 to 1670 of Civil Code of Quebec (" C.C.Q. "), to obtain payment not only from Mr.

Coleman, but also directly from Canassistance. [ 8 ] In Les Obligations [1] , Mes Pierre-Gabriel Jobin and Nathalie Vézina write (citation omitted): "La délégation est une institution fort importante en matière de commerce, puisqu'elle sert à expliquer le fonctionnement de différents mécanismes de paiement, notamment la lettre de crédit et, jusqu'à un certain point, le chèque et la lettre de change 2 .

Elle peut survenir de façon ponctuelle entre des personnes qui ne sont pas antérieurement liées entre elles par des rapports juridiques… La plupart du temps toutefois, elle se produit dans le cadre de relations préexistantes entre le délégant et le délégué, par exemple lorsque le délégué s'engage, moyennant contrepartie du déléguant, à fournir un financement qui facilitera les relations d'affaires de ce dernier avec le créancier- délégataire 4 ." [ 9 ] The facts and the documents presently alleged are sufficient to allow Plaintiff to proceed to trial in order to obtain the factual clarifications that may be required by the Court prior to definitively deciding the validity of Plaintiff's legal argument. [ 10 ] Plaintiff also invokes

article 2501 C.C.Q. to justify its recourse. Considering that this judgment will not be final with respect to the legal issues raised by Canassistance to obtain the dismissal of the action, the Court deems more appropriate to refrain from commenting on the applicability of

Article 2501 C.C.Q. at this stage. [ 11 ] Canassistance also asks the Court to dismiss the action on the ground that it is not and cannot be Mr. Coleman's insurance company, although Canassistance's attorney concedes that Canassistance Inc. is a subsidiary of an insurance company, namely " Canassurance Compagnie d'Assurance ". [ 12 ] The Statement from the " Registre des entreprises " (P-4) reveals that amongst the other names used in Quebec, Canassistance Inc. uses the trademark Blue Cross.

This name is mentioned on the Certificate (P-3), where there is no indication confirming the role and/or involvement of " Canassurance Compagnie d'Assurance ". [ 13 ] The Defendant that was assigned is " Canassistance ", having a place of business at 550 Sherbrooke West, which also happens to be the address, indicated at the register (P-4) for its shareholder, Canassurance Compagnie d'Assurance. [ 14 ] As far as Plaintiff is concerned, nothing has yet been alleged or presented to establish that Canassistance, which issued a cheque to Plaintiff, has no legal obligation towards Plaintiff as a result of the documents (P-2). [ 15 ] The legal relationship between Canassistance and Canassurance Compagnie d'Assurance and Mr.

Coleman may reveal that there is a need to amend the name of the corporate Defendant or even to add a Defendant, but at this stage, considering

article 292 C.C.P. and that Plaintiff's action is far from being statute barred, it would not be in the interest of justice or in conformity with

Article 4.2 C.C.P. to dismiss Plaintiff's action for this reason. [ 16 ] Even if no formal appearance has yet been filed for Mr. Coleman, Plaintiff's attorney mentioned to the Court that an attorney from outside Quebec has contacted him. The Court expects Plaintiff's attorney to transmit this judgment to the attorney in question and hopes that Mr.

Coleman will realize the importance of obtaining adequate legal representation in this province. [ 17 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] DISMISSES Canassurance's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Action; [ 19 ] The whole, with costs to follow suit. __________________________________ Martine l. TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. Me Felipe Morales COLBY, MONET, DEMERS, DELAGE & CREVIER Procurer of Plaintiff Me Élizabeth Laroche HEENAN BLAIKIE Procurer of Defendants Date of hearing: August 26, 2013