2018 QCCQ 4244, 2018 QCCQ 4244

Schneider Attorney Inc. c. Snyder 2018 QCCQ 4244 JG2338 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEAUHARNOIS LOCALITY OF SALABERRY-DE-VALLEYFIELD Civil Division No: 760-32-018153-173 DATE: April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE CÉLINE GERVAIS, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ SCHNEIDER ATTORNEY INC. Plaintiff v.

Stacey SNYDER Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Schneider Attorney inc. claims from Mrs. Stacey Snyder the amount of $ 2 216.98 representing their fees for legal services rendered in a litigation in which Mrs. Snyder was claiming over $ 250 000 further to a real-estate transaction. THE CONTEXT: [ 2 ] Me Schneider has filed a Demand on behalf of Mrs. Snyder in the Superior Court of Montreal on February 2, 2015.

The case followed the usual procedure until it was inscribed for trial on June 29, 2016. [ 3 ] Throughout this process, Me Schneider has regularly sent bills to his client Mrs. Snyder, almost once a month. Between January 30, 2015, and the last bill of June 30, 2016, Me Schneider has issued twelve invoices. [ 4 ] The last payment he received was by a $ 2 000 wire transfer on July 11, 2016, which was applied on previous bills. [ 5 ] On July 29, 2016, Me Schneider sends an email to Mrs. Snyder asking her to kindly send another payment as the balance due and remaining is $ 2 216.98. [ 6 ] Mrs.

Snyder respond on August 29, 2016, saying the following: “Good morning, I have returned from my vacation and will deal with the bank today and you should have payment tomorrow.” [ 7 ] Me Schneider did not receive any payments since then, and was notified at the end of October 2016 that Mrs. Snyder has chosen a new attorney for her file. The notice of “Substitution d’avocats” was filed in the Superior Court’s docket on November 1, 2016. [ 8 ] After sending a formal letter of demand, Schneider Attorney filed this demand on May 29, 2017. It is only by Mrs.

Snyder’s contestation, dated June 16, 2017, that Me Schneider learned that Mrs. Snyder’s grounds of defense were that he did not represent her at the best of his abilities, that he was unorganized, aggressive and insulting towards her and a witness. She adds that the billing was inflated and that he tried to take advantage of her financially. ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

[ 9 ] After the hearing had started, Mrs. Snyder requested a postponement of the case because one of her witness was not available due to the imminent birth of his child. As the trial had already begun, the postponement was refused, but Mrs. Snyder was granted the permission to file a “Declaration in lieu of testimony” from her witness, and Me Schneider was granted the permission to respond. [ 10 ] Mr. Choukair’s Declaration confirms the unprofessional and abusive attitude he perceived from Me Schneider.

Needless to say that all those accusations are completely and utterly denied by Me Schneider. [ 11 ] It can be noted from the study of the “Plumitif” that Mrs. Snyder’s file was handled closely by her former attorney, the Superior Court procedures, involving three defendants, having been completed within a delay of sixteen months, including examinations and several motions. [ 12 ] Regarding Me Schneider’s invoices, they were sent very regularly, so Mrs.

Snyder could know precisely how much her legal fees were costing her; the invoices are detailed, with a complete description of the services rendered, the dates, the initials of the attorney who worked and the number of hours that were billed. As for Me Schneider’s hourly rate, it is reasonable considering his experience. It shall also be noted that the last invoice includes an amount of $ 510 paid to the Court for the inscription of the Superior Court file. [ 13 ] In her testimony, Mrs.

Snyder said that the abuse from Me Schneider started at the end of 2015, but prior to that date regarding the witness. [ 14 ] The Court cannot understand why, in those circumstances, she made payments without any complaints and that she let Me Schneider know of her dissatisfaction about his behavior only in her Contestation of his Demand a year and a half later. [ 15 ] It is also very hard to understand why on August 29 Mrs. Snyder, instead of explaining to Me Schneider what the problems were, told him instead that he would receive a payment on the next day. [ 16 ] The Court considers that Mrs.

Snyder’s ground of defense cannot be taken into consideration and that she has not proven that Me Schneider’s services were not rendered correctly and that the amount he claims is not justified. [ 17 ] However, no proof was made of Mrs. Snyder’s consent to pay an interest rate of 24 % per annum, Mrs. Snyder will be condemned to pay the amount of $ 2 216.98 with the legal interest and the additional indemnity, from July 30, 2017, as per Me Schneider’s Demand.

FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the action; ORDERS Defendant, Stacey SNYDER, to pay to Plaintiff, SCHNEIDER ATTORNEY INC., the amount of $ 2 216.98 with interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity provided for by

Section 1619 Q.C.C., since July 30, 2017; THE WHOLE with the legal costs of $ 150. __________________________________ CÉLINE GERVAIS, J.Q.C.