2021 QCCQ 10251, 2021 QCCQ 10251

Mosca c. Controls (Tyco Int. and Security) 2021 QCCQ 10251 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF montreal Civil Division No: 500-32-709827-192 DATE: October 5, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONORABLE CAtherine Pilon J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LARA MOSCA Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS (TYCO INT.

AND SECURITY) Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT RENDERED ON THE BENCH ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff claims $5,960.01 from the Defendant, her ex-employer, in the following context. Context [ 2 ] A demand was filed before the Small Claims Division of this Court in Sherbrooke against the Plaintiff.

She was served at her workplace where the Defendant is located. [ 3 ] The Plaintiff in this demand claimed reimbursement of a loan. [ 4 ] The minutes of service by the bailiff show that the demand was left with an employee of the Defendant on April 28, 2018. [ 5 ] According to the Plaintiff, the proceeding was never forwarded to her by the Defendant. [ 6 ] A judgment by default was rendered against the Plaintiff on July 12, 2018. [ 7 ] The Plaintiff testified that she was only made aware of the judgment in February 2019, when her salary was seized, such that it was too late to apply for a revocation because she had passed the six month delay of

article 546 of the Code of Civil Procedure . [ 8 ] The Plaintiff blames the Defendant for not having forwarded the demand when it was served, which resulted in her failure to contest it in Sherbrooke. She has since had to pay $3,460.01 to satisfy the judgment. She claims this amount from the Defendant. She also claims $2,500 for stress, trouble and inconvenience. [ 9 ] She feels she would have successfully contested the demand had she known of its existence. Analysis [ 10 ] The evidence does not support the Plaintiff’s version that she was only made aware of the judgment in February 2019.

The Defendant has adduced evidence in the form of emails exchanged with the Plaintiff on July 19, 2018, seven days after the judgment. She is sent a copy of the judgment as an attachment to the email, and warned that the matter could be time sensitive.

However, she chose not to do anything about it. [ 11 ] The Court is of the view that it is the Plaintiff’s own negligence which led her to miss the delay to apply for a revocation of judgment. [ 12 ] In addition, the Plaintiff had to prove that had she contested the demand, she would have had a reasonable chance to have it dismissed. [ 13 ] Her only grounds of defense were that she was on disability leave and that she could not have afforded to pay. These are not valid grounds of defense and the demand would have be granted, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s contestation.

In other words, even had she been made aware of the demand and contested it, the end-result would not be different. [ 14 ] There is no causality between the alleged fault of the Defendant and the amount the Plaintiff had to pay pursuant the judgment by default. [ 15 ] The Plaintiff’s action is unfounded. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 16 ] DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s Demand against the Defendant; [ 17 ] CONDEMNS the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant the Court costs of $256. ______________________________ Catherine Pilon, J.C.Q. Date of hearing : October 5, 2021