2013 QCCQ 11403, 2013 QCCQ 11403

Singh c. Yukhno 2013 QCCQ 11403 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF HULL TOWN OF GATINEAU Civil Division No: 550-32-020466-121 DATE: September 19, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND SÉGUIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ KARANJIT SANDHU SINGH , […], Gatineau (Québec) […] Plaintiff v.

VIKTOR YUKHNO , […], Gatineau (Québec) […] Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff's describes the cause of action as follows: «The division of a common fence which Mr.

Viktor refuse to pay.» [ 2 ] The plaintiff asks to be reimburse of half of the expenses already paid for the installation of the said fence: ($942.36 for the material, plus $2,250 for the installation, for a total of $3,192.36) $1,596.18. [ 3 ] The defendant contests the claim on the ground that he had never talked with the plaintiff about the fence and that he had never seen the competing quotes. [ 4 ] In his letter sent to the plaintiff on July 11 th , 2012, the defendant gives these more explanations for his refusal to a common fence: "I have never talked to you on the phone.

As a sole owner of the […] , I ha never discussed an installation of the fence with you. You spoke to my wife about possibility of getting the fence. During the phone call she has stated to you, that she will inform me about your call, and if I am interested, I will give you a call back. Since you have not received my call back, you have no right to assume, that I have agreed to the installation. In fact, not receiving a call back is usually interpreted as polite "NO", or "I am not interested", and not otherwise.

In regards to your statement, "that I have never shown or confirmed that I disagree with the installation of the fence", I would like to state the following: You can install a fence around your property at your own cost, and that is exactly what I thought you were doing within your property limits and as long as my property line is not crossed . Therefore, I could not possibly object to that. Lastly, my financial situation is not as good as yours.

It would be foolish on my end to accept an installation of the unnecessary fence, when I have to support two kids and have a very tight budget." [ 5 ] Previously, on July 11 th , the plaintiff had sent to the defendant a mise en demeure : "Je suis le propriétaire de l'unité situé au […] , Gatineau, ainsi que votre voisin immédiat puisque nous sommes des maisons semi- détachées.

En début du moi de Mai, je vous ai téléphoné afin de connaître vos intentions pour clôturer nos propriétés à l'arrière. Pendant cette conversation téléphonique, je vous ai fait mention du fait que puisque nous avons une ligne de propriété mitoyenne, les coûts pour clôturer sur la ligne mitoyenne devront donc être à partager. Verbalement, vous m'avez confirmé d'aller à l'avant avec ce projet et d'ainsi clôturer sur la ligne de propriété mitoyenne et que les couts seront donc partagés. Suite à cette conversation, plusieurs compagnies d'installation de clôtures sont venues me donner des estimations.

Après avoir reçue plusieurs estimations, j'ai finalement décidé d'aller à l'avant avec la compagnie qui était le moins cher sur le marché. Je voudrais vous faire part que suite à cette lettre de mise en demeure, je vous attache une copie de la facture de ladite compagnie pour l'installation des clôtures qui incluent la main-d'œuvre et le matériel. De plus, je voudrais vous spécifier que si vous n'étiez pas prêt à partager les coûts de ladite clôture, l'installation de la clôture aurait donc été fait entièrement sur les limites de ma propriété et non pas sur le ligne mitoyenne.

Dernièrement, au fur et à mesure du développement de l'installation de la clôture, vous m'avez jamais démontré ou confirmer que vous étiez en désaccord avec ladite installation de clôture." [ 6 ] The evidence is showing that the fence has been installed on May 25 th , 2012, on the separating line. [ 7 ] After analysis of the evidence, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for the following reasons. [ 8 ] First, it is clear that the defendant never gave his consent to the installation of the fence; on the contrary as mentioned in his letter, he did not have a budget for that. [ 9 ] As explained by the defendant, the absence of an answer cannot be interpreted as a "yes": "Since you have not received my call back, you have no right to assume that I have agreed to the installation.

In fact, not receiving a call back is usually interpreted as polite "NO", or "I am not interested", and not otherwise." [ 10 ] Finally, the defendant explained that since the plaintiff had started the construction of the fence without an agreement, he concluded that the fence was being installed on his own property limit, which is authorized by the law. [ 11 ] Since he had not obtained the defendant's consent, the plaintiff had no other choice but to install the fence on his own property, according to

Section 1002. of the Civil Code of Quebec : " 1002. Any owner of land may fence it, at his own expense, with walls, ditches, hedges or any other kind of fence. …" [ 12 ] In brief, the plaintiff had to obtain the defendant's consent before the installation of the fence on the dividing line, and, if not, he had to pay the whole costs. THEREFORE, FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL: DISMISSES the claim with cost. __________________________________ RAYMOND SÉGUIN, J.Q.C . Date of hearing: August 26, 2013.