2014 QCCQ 6543, 2014 QCCQ 6543

7533039 Canada inc. c. Cine Qua Non Media inc. 2014 QCCQ 6543 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-135902-122 DATE: July 11 , 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ 7533039 CANADA INC. 207-11 Charlevoix, Montréal, Québec, H3J 2V9 Plaintiff v.

CINE QUA NON MEDIA INC. 4245 St-André, Suite 402 Montréal, Québec, H2J 2Z3 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff 7533039 Canada Inc., a consulting company operated by its principal, Michael Solomon, sues Cine Qua Non Media Inc. for a contractual balance of $ 1,739.62 plus $ 500 damages relating to a contract where by the Plaintiff undertook to provide film production services to the Defendant in 2010 and 2011. [ 2 ] In its written contestation, the Defendant admits that there was a contract for services for a fee of $ 3,000, but this was to cover work already completed and to be completed and, after a partial payment, no additional amount was owed because the parties put an end to their collaboration. [ 3 ] The Plaintiff admits having received a partial payment of $ 1,708.88 on the amount of the agreement which, with added a taxes, amounts to $ 3,448.50.

ISSUE [ 4 ] The Court must determine: 1) Did the Plaintiff perform the services required under the contract? 2) What, if any, amount remains owing? FACTS [ 5 ] The Defendant did not attend the hearing so the Court must rely upon the testimony of the Plaintiff's representative Michael Solomon and a perusal of all of the documents. [ 6 ] On Wednesday, February 23, 2011, Michel Ouellette wrote to Michael Solomon (P-15). The following except from the text establishes the existence of the contract: I did offer you 3000$ for the work we were actually doing.

Please send an invoice, may be you did sent it but Murphy don't have it. We'll pay 50% and we will discuss on the priority of the production and establish what should be our task for the up coming step. The second half will be payable at a fix date…[sic] [ 7 ] Mr Solomon explains that the parties had drafted a more elaborate agreement previously that involved payment of $ 5,000 per

phase of the production process. The contract was never signed, although work began. The only agreement that can be established in writing is the one set out in the email. [ 8 ] The Plaintiff did send an invoice and was paid the first 50% portion. Mr Solomon's testimony, however, establishes that the work was completed to the point where the draft screenplay was delivered. Mr Solomon was effectively fired after the work contemplated in that phase had been completed.

He was, therefore, entitled to the payment. [ 9 ] The invoice dated March 1, 2011 reads : Payment due to be paid in two (2) installments [sic] – Fifty percent (50%) upon receipt of this invoice and fifty percent (50%) upon receipt of any further development, polish and packaging, or production investments made by SODEC and/or Telefilm Canada as of March 1, 2011. (P-17) [ 10 ] In paying the first instalment, Michel Ouellette wrote an email March 7, 2011 ( P -17) reiterating that he did not agree to pay $ 5,000 per phase of development, stating that Cine Qua Non Media did not wish to retain his services for the project and promising to pay, however, the first instalment.

The subsequent correspondence shows that Michel Ouellette is reneging on the agreement, denying that there is an agreement for $ 3,000 and attempting to settle the matter through the payment of $ 1,500. [ 11 ] These communications stand in stark contrast to the clear agreement confirmed in the February 23 rd email where the amount of $ 3,000 is agreed to as well as the commitment to pay 50% now and 50% at a fixed date.

On September 8, Michel Ouellette takes the position that Solomon's services have not been retained but that the payment of the 50% of the $ 3,000 is a "dédommagement pour ce qui a été fait et mettait fin à notre collaboration." (P-19) ANALYSIS [ 12 ] Having made the first agreement, there was no question that a commitment was made to pay $ 3,000 for work currently under development, one half immediately and one half later. [ 13 ] Though the date for the second payment is not fixed, it is implicit in the arrangement that it will be made within a reasonable time.

By now, more than a year later, it is obvious that the amount should have been paid. The correspondence shows that the film project received SODEC development financing.

There could be no objective reason why the date for payment should be put off any longer. [ 14 ] The claim for damages is, however, ill founded as there was no definite commitment to retain the services of the Plaintiff beyond this initial contract and the client is always given the option of resiliating a contract of services for prospective work. [ 15 ] In the present case, the value of the work completed to date was not only demonstrated through the testimony of the Plaintiff's representative, it was also the subject matter of an agreement for a fixed amount.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT CONDEMNS the Defendant to pay, to the Plaintiff the amount of $ 1,739.62, together with interest at the legal rate of 5% per annum and the additional indemnity provided at

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec , calculated from October 4, 2012; CONDEMNS the Defendant to pay, to the Plaintiff, judicial costs in the amount of $ 152. __________________________________ DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: March 31, 2014