2012 QCCQ 7368, 2012 QCCQ 7368

Edwards c. Proscan Media Products 2012 QCCQ 7368 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF LONGUEUIL TOWN OF LONGUEUIL Civil Division No: 505-32-028664-119 DATE: September 17 th , 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE LAPORTE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DANIEL EDWARDS Plaintiff v.

PROSCAN MEDIA PRODUCTS Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a motion in revocation of a judgment rendered by Justice Micheline Laliberté J.C.Q. on March 13, 2012 following the default of the defendant to plead to a demand filed by plaintiff Daniel Edwards dated August 22 th 2011. [ 2 ] The Court record discloses that the demand (seeking an amount of 5 335,90 $) was served on the defendant on September 19, 2011.

Cristy Daigneault of Proscan acknowledges that she was the recipient of the document. [ 3 ] The defendant immediately thereafter sent a cheque to Daniels, albeit for a lesser amount, but did not file a contestation. [ 4 ] The hearing took place before Justice Laliberté on February 14, 2012 in the absence of the defendant. [ 5 ] Judgment was rendered on March 13, 2012 whereby Proscan was condemned to pay plaintiff an amount of 1 947,14 $, ie, the balance of the amount owing. [ 6 ] Defendant claims [1] in its motion in revocation that it was taken by surprise in that : «I was not aware there was a proceeding against Proscan Media Products in the Court of Quebec until I was served a copy of a Judgment written completely in the French Language wherein Proscan Media Products Inc. is named as a Defendant.

I am unable to understand the Judgment as Proscan Media is a company incorporated under the laws of Ontario and all of its senior officers are English speaking only. I would like a chance to request all documents in English, review the claim that was made against the Defendant Proscan Media Products and be given a fair opportunity to respond at a hearing.» [ 7 ]

Section 989 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure states as follows : « If a party against whom a judgment by default is rendered was unable to contest the action or attend the hearing owing to surprise, fraud or any other sufficient cause, the party may apply for the revocation of the judgment. A party may also apply for the revocation of the judgment in any case described in

article 483 that is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Book. » [ 8 ] The Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the default judgment was rendered because it was unable to contest the action or attend the hearing owing to surprise, fraud or a other sufficient causes. [ 9 ] Be it a lack of diligence or organization, Proscan has only itself to blame for failing to file a contestation. WHEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 10 ] DISMISSES Defendant's motion for revocation of Judgment; [ 11 ] WITH COSTS. __________________________________ CLAUDE LAPORTE, J.C.Q.