2017 QCCQ 1559, 2017 QCCQ 1559

Haldane-Lutterodt c. Société de transport de Montréal 2017 QCCQ 1559 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-148216-155 DATE: February 17, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE GILLES LAREAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ WILHEM HALDANE-LUTTERODT Plaintiff v.

SOCIÉTÉ DE TRANSPORT DE MONTRÉAL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On July 27 2013, Wilhem Haldane-Lutterodt (LUTTERODT) was hit by a bus belonging to the Société de Transport de Montréal (STM). He suffered some injuries for which he was compensated according to the Automobile Insurance Act [1] . He alleges that, as a result of this accident, he also lost a Tag Heuer watch for which he claims 3,350.00$. [ 2 ] STM contests the claim.

They contend that LUTTERODT did not meet his burden of proof regarding the loss of such a watch and its value. [ 3 ] The only questions that the Court must decide is whether or not LUTTERODT proved the facts on which his claim is based. ANALYSIS [ 4 ]

Section 2803 of the Civil Code of Québec [2] (C.C.Q.) establishes that a person who wishes to assert a right, bears the onus of proving the facts pertaining to his claim. In short, this means that LUTTERODT must prove that he was if fact wearing a Tag Heuer watch when he was hit by the bus, that as a result, he lost his watch and that it is worth what he is claiming. [ 5 ] For a watch of this value, one would expect that its owner would keep the receipt of its purchase, for warranty or insurance purposes, but this is not the case.

At the hearing, LUTTERODT had absolutely no document that would establish that he did in fact own such a watch.

He requested, and it was granted, that the Court give him a few days to allow him to complete his evidence by sending pictures of him wearing the watch and an appraisal from the jeweler who services the watch. [ 6 ] Upon receipt of these documents, the Court took the case under advisement. [ 7 ] Unfortunately for LUTTERODT, the two documents he submitted in evidence fall short of establishing by preponderance of proof that he did, indeed, own such a watch. [ 8 ] The first document is a picture of very poor quality.

Though it does show him wearing some kind of wristwatch, it is impossible to identify the make and, what's more, the model of the watch. The second document is a letter written on a blank piece of paper and allegedly coming from the president of a numbered company. Again, one would expect more from a jeweler who has been servicing such an expensive watch for a number of years. [ 9 ] No other document and no other witness corroborated LUTTERODT's assertion regarding the loss of his watch. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the action.

With judicial costs. __________________________________ GILLES LAREAU, J.C.Q.

Date of hearing: January 24,2017