2018 QCCQ 961, 2018 QCCQ 961

Monette c. Van Hoof 2018 QCCQ 961 COURT OF QUEBEC « Small Claim Division » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU LOCALITY OF GATINEAU N° : 550-32-700336-172 DATE : February 23, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE JEAN FAULLEM, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ JOSÉE MONETTE and MARK FELDBAUER Plaintiffs c.

JEREMY VAN HOOF and SHELLEY CRAIG Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ JF 1075 [ 1 ] On June 25, 2017, Plaintiffs introduced a judicial application by which they are claiming Defendants $8,388.58 in damages resulting from an alleged hidden defect concerning the water pressure and quality in their new residence acquired from the latter on February 3, 2017. [ 2 ] On January 11, 2018, Plaintiffs amended their application to increase their claim to $12,738.58. [ 3 ] Defendants are opposing the filling of the amended application. [ 4 ] As per

section 207 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( CCP ), the Court must therefore decide if Plaintiffs may modify their application. [ 5 ] Sections 206 and 207 CCP read as follows: “206. At any time before judgment, the parties may withdraw or amend a pleading without it being necessary to obtain an authorization from the court, provided doing so does not delay the proceeding and is not contrary to the interests of justice. However, the amendment of a pleading must not result in an entirely new application having no connection with the original one .

An amendment to a pleading may be made, for instance, to replace, correct or complete statements or conclusions, allege new facts or assert a right accrued since the notification of the application. 207. A party that intends to withdraw or amend a pleading must notify the intended withdrawal or the amended pleading to the other

parties, which have 10 days to notify their opposition. If no opposition is notified, the withdrawal or amendment is accepted . If opposition is notified, the party that intends to withdraw or amend the pleading presents its application before the court for a decision . If any of the other parties must respond following the withdrawal or amendment of a pleading, the time limit for responding is set by the parties or, if the time limit is not already specified in the case protocol, by the court. If, as a result, a new defendant is brought into the proceeding, the judicial application must be notified to that party without delay.” [our underlying] [ 6 ]

Section 206 CPC provides that at any time before judgment a party may amend, without authorization and as often as necessary, its judicial proceedings. It is only in case of opposition by the other party that the court is seized of the request for an amendment (section 207 CPC). [ 7 ] Any request for an amendment of a small claims application must be broadly and liberally analyzed in order to promote the right of all litigants to use the simplified rules of small claims procedure up to the threshold of $15,000 [1] . [ 8 ] In general, amendments are allowed, unless it falls within one of the exceptions mentioned in

section 206 CPC, i.e., if it is “useless”, it is “contrary to the interests of justice” or if it results in “an entirely new claim unrelated to the original claim" [2] . Refusal of an amendment is the exception [3] . [ 9 ] In applying the exceptions that limit the scope of the general rule, the Court’s duty must be guided by the proper conduct and sound management of the proceeding, as inter alia provided in sections 9, 18 and 19 CCP (mission of the Court, rule of proportionality and duties of parties) and

section 150 CCP (guiding principles of procedure) [4] . [ 10 ] An amendment may also be refused if the application is submitted late [5] . In the present case, however, the amendments have been filed in due time before the trial date. [ 11 ] Moreover, the required amendments consist of new damages arising from the facts already alleged in the Plaintiffs’ application [6] . [ 12 ] Furthermore, Defendants’ Opposition to the amended application raises no particular ground for their objection to the amended Claim. Rather, the January 29, 2018, Opposition challenges the Plaintiffs’ claim on its merits.

Indeed, it appears from the Defendants’ Opposition that they contest the legality of the new document in support of the amended claim. This new plea does not, in itself, constitute ground for rejecting the amendments, but rather a ground for challenging the main claim. [ 13 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 14 ] AUTHORIZES the amended application filled by Plaintiffs on January 11, 2018. [ 15 ] THE WHOLE, without judicial fees. __________________________________ JEAN FAULLEM, J.C.Q .