2021 QCCQ 481, 2021 QCCQ 481

Deevy c. Thibeault 2021 QCCQ 481 COURT OF QUEBEC “Small Claims Division” CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU LOCALITY OF GATINEAU “Civil Division” No.: 550-32-701430-198 DATE: January 29, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE D. TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LINDA JILL DEEVY Plaintiff v.

MICHAEL THIBEAULT Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] While they were spouses, Mr. Thibeault used the couple’s car, registered in Ms. Deevy’s name. Between October 29, 2001, and August 28, 2002, Mr. Thibeault committed various offences for parking the car longer than permitted. The Ville de Gatineau issued notices of offence. Because the car was registered to Ms. Deevy, the notices of offence were issued in her name.

The fines in question totalled an impressive amount of $5,389. [ 2 ] Mr. Thibeault and Ms. Deevy failed to pay the fines. As a result, several Gatineau Municipal Court judgments were rendered against Ms. Deevy. [1] [ 3 ] On August 10, 2004, Ms. Deevy filed a motion with the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec (File 550-32-0112582- 042), claiming $5,389 from Mr. Thibeault, the amount of the fines appearing on the notices of offence. On October 18, 2004, Special Clerk Mtre Guy Naud rendered judgment. He granted the motion and condemned Mr. Thibeault to pay Ms. Deevy $5,389. [2] [ 4 ] Unfortunately for Ms.

Deevy, the judgment could not be executed because Mr. Thibeault made an assignment in bankruptcy on January 19, 2005. [3] [ 5 ] For various reasons, and even though she was aware that it could have negative consequences, Ms. Deevy failed to pay the judgments rendered against her by the Gatineau Municipal Court. On March 14, 2019, the Gatineau Municipal Court therefore took measures to force execution of the judgments rendered against Ms. Deevy. Her wages were garnished. [4] The amount claimed at the time was $6,015. On April 8, 2019, Ms. Deevy paid that amount. [5] [ 6 ] On June 11, 2019, Ms.

Deevy filed a new judicial application with the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec. She now claims $15,000 as reimbursement of the fines paid in April 2019 and as compensation for the inconvenience caused by this situation. More specifically, she claims that Mr. Thibeault made a fraudulent assignment in bankruptcy to avoid paying her the amount owed. [ 7 ] Let us consider this. [ 8 ] The Court dismisses the claim for reimbursement of the fines paid. Ms. Deevy acknowledges that she already claimed that amount in 2004 in File 550-32-0112582-042.

That claim has already been decided and judgment was rendered in her favour. The matter is res judicata . Indeed, the plaintiff filed the judgment of October 18, 2004, as an exhibit. [6] [ 9 ] Furthermore, there is no evidence that Mr. Thibeault used the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for fraudulent purposes. That said, good faith is presumed. [7] In any event, the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec does not have jurisdiction to decide a dispute likely to fall under the application of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act . If Ms. Deevy believes that she has a right to assert against Mr.

Thibeault related to the bankruptcy, she should turn to the trustee in bankruptcy or the Superior Court. [ 10 ] The other damages claimed by Ms. Deevy are not due directly to a fault of Mr. Thibeault but instead to Ms. Deevy’s neglect in paying the notices of offence issued or in complying with the various judgments rendered against her by the Gatineau Municipal Court. [ 11 ] Last, even though Mr. Thibeault’s refusal or inability to execute the judgment rendered on October 18, 2014, in favour of Ms. Deevy may give rise to a cause of action, her proceeding would have been dismissed because it is prescribed. Ms.

Deevy acknowledged that she was informed of Mr. Thibeault’s bankruptcy in early 2005. She should have instituted her proceeding within three years [8] of the day on which the right of action arose. [9] The case law establishes that ignorance of a right is not a reason to suspend prescription. [10] [ 12 ] In view of the above, the application is dismissed.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Application; WITH LEGAL COSTS of $205 in court fees related to the Defence in favour of Michael Thibeault. __________________________________ STÉPHANE D. TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: December 21, 2020