2012 QCCQ 5261, 2012 QCCQ 5261

Young c. Ramowski 2012 QCCQ 5261 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF HULL LOCALITY OF GATINEAU Civil Division No. 550-32-019094-116 DATE: June 29, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE RICHARD LAFLAMME J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DR. BARBARA YOUNG […]Chelseau (Québec) […] Plaintiff v.

ZADEK RAMOWSKI […]Chelsea (Québec) […] Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff is claiming from the defendant the sum of $276.18. She alleges that he placed dead trees on her property and, as a result, she had to hire a contractor to remove them. The plaintiff was absent, but represented by her partner, Richard Oslund. [ 2 ] The defendant contested the claim and filed a cross-demand for $760.

His claim has to do with the loss of wages and babysitting expenses he and his spouse incurred to be present in court. He is also claiming registered mail costs for letters he sent the plaintiff, in addition to court costs. [ 3 ] The parties are next-door neighbours. Relations have been strained for several years. [ 4 ] Mr. Oslund testified that, in April 2010, dead branches were placed on the plaintiff’s property. Photographs show the nature and quantity of the debris placed there. They also indicate that the pile of branches was near an access to a road. There were about ten big branches.

The plaintiff’s representative established on a balance of probabilities that the pile of dead wood was on Ms. Young’s property. [ 5 ] Since the plaintiff suspected that her neighbour had placed the wood there, Mr. Oslund phoned the defendant. As the defendant himself admitted, he agreed to move the pile, in an attempt to avoid a confrontation with his neighbours. The transcript and recording of the conversation were filed as evidence. During the conversation, the defendant said more specifically that he would move the pile when he had the time.

It is admitted that the defendant moved approximately two thirds of the wood pile. Given that fact, the plaintiff’s representative argued that the only logical conclusion to be drawn from such an action is that the defendant felt responsible for the presence of the pile of wood. For his part, the defendant explained that he acted as he did to avoid problems with his neighbour.

He added that, as he did not know who had piled the branches there, he did so in part because he could not rule out the possibility that the person responsible was the contractor who had come to carry out work some time earlier. [ 6 ] The Court considers that the plaintiff did not discharge her burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that it was the defendant who piled the branches on her property. It is just as likely that someone else could have done so. With respect, the Court does not consider that the defendant can be blamed for the act simply because he moved part of the pile.

The defendant’s credible explanation that he wanted to avoid any problems with his neighbour is very plausible, all the more so given that relations between the neighbours are extremely acrimonious. Consequently, the plaintiff’s proceeding must be dismissed. [ 7 ] As for the evidence related to the defendant’s cross-demand, it is weak, even non-existent and hopeless. He provided no evidence regarding his or his spouse’s income. There is no proof of payment, nor are there any details, regarding babysitting.

Even registered mail receipts could not be provided. [1] The Court has no hesitation in concluding that the defendant did not show, on a balance of probabilities, the facts he alleges. His proceeding must also be dismissed. THEREFORE, THE COURT: DISMISSES the plaintiff’s application;

DISMISSES the defendant's cross-demand; EACH party paying their own costs. __________________________________ RICHARD LAFLAMME J.C.Q. Date of hearing: May 28, 2012