2017 QCCQ 3573, 2017 QCCQ 3573

9223-9755 Québec inc. c. Sandrasagra 2017 QCCQ 3573 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-150952-168 DATE: April 7, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ 9223-9755 QUÉBEC INC., Plaintiff v.

VICTOR SANDRASAGRA, and IVAN GEKOFF, Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff, 9223-9755 Québec Inc., a corporation set up by its principal, George Kouyoumjian, to produce films sues the Defendants, Victor Sandrasagra and Ivan Gekoff, alleging that the Defendants failed to execute their duties in conjunction with a film project, produced and directed by Mr.

Kouyoumjian through the Plaintiff corporation, in November 2013 and following. [ 2 ] The Plaintiff alleges that the failure on the part of Mr. Gekoff, as Director of Photography, and Mr. Sandrasagra, as the person responsible for Special Effects, caused the material that was shot to be not usable. The claim includes $ 7,000 representing the expenses invested in the project and $ 8,000 for Mr.

Kouyoumjian’s emotional distress, disappointment and loss of time. [ 3 ] The project that the Plaintiff was shooting, then titled “Transfigurations” involved scenes where images shot in a green screen room would be superimposed over background shots filmed on locations. [ 4 ] After the shots were done first in the green screen room and then in the locations, a synagogue and a flower shop, Mr.

Kouyoumjian took the material to a post-production facility for the shots to be combined. [ 5 ] He obtained advice from two individuals that the material could not be used because of technical issues related to the way in which the filming proceeded. One of the witnesses, a special effects editor, lists the problem as follows:

a) The screen shots were badly lit;

b) The shade of green used for the green screen shots were inappropriate;

c) A crumbled green blanket was placed on the floor for the green screen shots and the folds in the blanket created many shades of green;

d) The actor was shot too close to the green screen, causing the green light to fall on his face and body, rendering it impossible to remove the green without eliminating parts of the actor’s body;

e) The position, angle and choices of lenses for both the green screen shots and the Plate shots did not match;

f) The plate shots should have been filmed before the green shots, but were not; (P-17). [ 6 ] The parties admitted that the other witness, also a special effects editor, would have given the same criticisms. [ 7 ] The Defendants admit to a certain extent that there were technical difficulties in the project, namely that it would have been more appropriate to shoot the background shots on location, known as “plates”, in order to match the camera angles and other technical

components of the green screen shots taken later. [ 8 ] They admitted as well that there were difficulties arising from the colours of the walls in the synagogue and other aspects relating to the choice of location. [ 9 ] Their defence, however, is that, with enough work in the post-production facilities, the shots could have been salvaged and made useful for this low-budget, short film. [ 10 ] They disagree therefore with the statement of the witnesses that the material was not usable at all. [ 11 ] They also base their defence on the notion that they were only involved to execute the work they were asked to do and that the planning of the shots, including the order in which the filming took place, the choice of locations, and the choice of the green screen room, were those of the filmmaker.

They do not take responsibility for the methodology used, the choice of locations or the quality of the fairly low-budget green screen room chosen. [ 12 ] Mr. Kouyoumjian’s responds to this defence by stating that he had very little experience in special effects and was relying upon the Defendants to counsel him as to the feasibility of the project.

He asserts that he should have been told the methodology he was imposing through the choice of locations, the choice of the green screen room, and the scheduling of the location shots after the green screen shootings rather than before, are mistakes to be attributed not to himself as producer/director but to the Defendants as special effects expert and director of photography respectively. ISSUES [ 13 ] To resolve this dispute, the Court must decide whether the Plaintiff has fulfilled his burden of establishing the following points : 1.

That the contract provided for the obligation of the two Defendants to advise and counsel the Plaintiff as to the proper methodology and technical choices to be made in the shooting of the scenes they were hired for. 2. That they failed to give this advice. 3. That as a consequence, the shots cannot be used and represent a loss of significant investment. ANALYSIS [ 14 ] In the Court’s view, the Plaintiff’s case fails for two reasons.

Firstly, the Plaintiff has not established that the contractual obligations of the persons he has hired extended to counselling and advising the director/producer as to the fundamental methodologies involved in filmmaking of this type. [ 15 ] Mr. Kouyoumjian’s testimony establishes that he did not have the requisite knowledge and skill to produce a film of this type but he has not established that the contractual arrangements he made with the Defendants extended to transferring to them the technical responsibility of the production of the film. [ 16 ] Rather, the evidence shows that Mr.

Kouyoumjian established the

schedule of shots, chose the locations, and established the parameters within which the work could be done on the budget that he had. [ 17 ] Mr. Gekoff convinced the Court through his testimony that he was doing his best within these limitations and that he had never been called upon to collaborate in the planning of the film. He simply lent a hand in doing the photography at a reduced rate and brought in a collaborator, Mr. Sandrasagra, who would do the post-production work. [ 18 ] Mr.

Sandrasagra was not given much of a briefing; he attended on location and in the green screen room but was not consulted as to the methodology and technical choices open to the director. [ 19 ] Very little work was done by Mr. Sandrasagra and he was not paid in full for the time he did spend. He did not accept the invitation to continue working on the project when Mr. Kouyoumjian insisted that he show what he could do with material and provide examples of his previous work. There was one still shot generated to show what could be done with the material.

It shows the combination of a shot in the synagogue location and the figure of man superimposed as if he were hanging from the ceiling. [ 20 ] It is impossible for the Court to conclude anything from this still shot as to the possible success or failure of the project. It was simply an attempt on the part of Messrs. Sandrasagra and Gekoff to show how the two images could be combined. [ 21 ] Mr. Gekoff gave lots of technical information to the Court about the technical limitations of the project and how it had proceeded in a way that was not standard.

The Court accepts his testimony that he provided his best efforts in an environment where he had not been called upon to plan the project. [ 22 ] Finally, Mr. Kouyoumjian’s acceptance of failure should not be taken as definitive proof that the materials filmed are entirely useless.

The testimony of the two post-production experts that he produced demonstrates that the materials do not meet the standards imposed by those two witnesses, but it was not established that these standards apply to a low-budget, short film of this type nor that no final product could be achieved. [ 23 ] Rather, this testimony simply shows that those particular post-production experts were not interested in performing the work because they did not think they could reach a result that would meet their standards.

[ 24 ] On the whole, the Court finds that the Plaintiff did not establish that the Defendants were responsible for the technical choices that were imposed on the project nor that the materials shot are of no use. [ 25 ] In any event, the Court would not have awarded moral damages to the Plaintiff corporation because of the inconvenience of its principal, the corporation being a moral person. BY THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the claim of the Plaintiff; THE WHOLE with judicial costs in favour of the Defendants in the amount of $ 200 for the Court stamp. __________________________________ DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: March 28, 2017