2012 QCCQ 8218, 2012 QCCQ 8218

Thibault Cléroux c. Ramsden 2012 QCCQ 8218 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-22-190487-127 DATE: October 10, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ARMANDO AZNAR, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ ARNAULT THIBAULT CLÉROUX Plaintiff v.

Daniela RAMSDEN Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff, a law firm, claims from Defendant the sum of $7,769.45 for services rendered at the request and for the benefit of said Defendant. [ 2 ] Defendant orally contested Plaintiff's action alleging, in substance, that the fees billed and claimed by Plaintiff were unreasonable. [ 3 ] Subsequently, Defendant filed a detailed written plea alleging, once again, that the fees billed and claimed by Plaintiff were unreasonable adding furthermore that some of the fees were billed in double. [ 4 ] Defendant also alleges to be dissatisfied with the services rendered at trial by her lawyer, Me Michèle Tétreault. [ 5 ] Finally, Defendant alleges having overpaid Plaintiff for an amount of $4,672.90 that she now claims by way of cross-demand. [ 6 ] The facts pertinent to the present case can be summarized as follows. [ 7 ] Defendant retained the services of Me Michèle Tétreault, a lawyer employed by Plaintiff, in regard to an action in the amount of $37,230.33 instituted against her by 103441 Canada Inc., a construction company.

This action concerned renovations performed to a building where Defendant was the owner of a condominium unit [1] . [ 8 ] The trial in the above mentioned case was pleaded before the Court of Quebec on December 14 and 15, 2011 and judgment was rendered on September 6, 2012. [ 9 ] The evidence adduced at trial reveals that Defendant has in fact paid all the bills sent to her by Plaintiff except for the last bill dated December 31, 2011, which was for an amount of $10,114.39.

In fact, a balance of $7,769.45 remains owing on this bill payment of which is claimed by Plaintiff in the present action. [ 10 ] The dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant arises from the fact that for the preparation of the trial opposing Defendant to 103441 Canada Inc. in the file bearing number 500-22-170517-109, Plaintiff requested from Defendant an advance of $14,000.00 to cover payment of previous unpaid bills and for the preparation and the pleading of the said trial. [ 11 ] Defendant alleges that she remitted to Plaintiff a cheque of the amount of $14,000.00 dated December 13, 2011 because, as she testified, she thought she had no choice if she wanted to be represented by attorney at the trial which took place on December 14 and 15, 2011.

Consequently, immediately after the trial, she put a stop payment order on the said cheque of $14,000.00. [ 12 ] Furthermore, Defendant also alleges that Me Tétreault did not represent her adequately at the said trial.

More particularly, she alleges that Me Tétreault did not file all the available documentary evidence to support her case and that the trial was conducted partly in French which caused her to be in the dark occasionally. [ 13 ] The evidence adduced at trial has revealed that Me Michèle Tétreault, on behalf of Plaintiff, kept Defendant informed regularly of the fees that were being incurred in the defence of the action instituted against her by 103441 Canada Inc.

Also, Plaintiff did bill Defendant on a regular basis. [ 14 ] In addition, Defendant never advised Plaintiff, until after the trial, that she contested the bills that had been sent to her. [ 15 ] Defendant also alleges that there was some double billing in the bills sent to her by Plaintiff. In this regard, a careful examination of the bills does not reveal the existence of the alleged double billing.

[ 16 ] Regarding Defendant's allegations that Me Tétreault did not represent her adequately at trial, nothing in the evidence allows the Court to conclude in this manner, quite the contrary.

In fact, in the light of the testimony of Me Tétreault and that of Defendant, and upon reading the judgment rendered by this Court on September 6, 2012 in the case opposing 103441 Canada Inc. to Defendant, it appears that Me Tétreault represented said Defendant in a professional manner worthy of the fees that were billed. [ 17 ] The evidence has revealed that Defendant wished that the trial opposing her to 103441 Canada Inc. be pleaded and that is exactly what Plaintiff did in conformity with her specific instructions. [ 18 ] The fees claimed by Plaintiff may appear to be high but the services were rendered professionally and the fees billed reasonable in the light of the complexity of the litigation opposing Defendant to the other parties.

Defendant was also well aware of the costs that would be incurred by her in bringing the case to trial. [ 19 ] Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's action is well founded in fact and in law and must be maintained for the full amount. [ 20 ] As for Defendant's plea and cross-demand, it is dismissed. WHEREFORE, FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to institute proceedings. CONDEMNS Defendant to pay to Plaintiff the amount of $7,769.45 with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided for by

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec as of December 22, 2011. DISMISSES Defendant's plea and cross-demand. THE WHOLE, with costs. __________________________________ ARMANDO AZNAR, J.Q.C. Me Eleni Gallos (ARNAULT, THIBAULT, CLÉROUX) Attorney for Plaintiff Daniela Ramsden (Personnaly) Date of hearing: September 14, 2012.