2017 QCCQ 7483, 2017 QCCQ 7483

Haas c. 9291059 Canada inc. (Amuze Group) 2017 QCCQ 7483 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL Civil Division No. 500-32-151327-162 Date: June 21, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY JUDGE HENRI RICHARD ______________________________________________________________________ ISABELLA HAAS Plaintiff v. 9291059 CANADA INC. (AMUZE GROUP) and 8762236 CANADA INC. (BRICKS 4 KIDZ) Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Isabella Haas is claiming $9,514.03 from the defendants for services rendered or unjust enrichment or dissolution of a tacit partnership. [ 2 ] At the trial, the defendants’ representative, Donna Rice, acknowledged that aMuze Group ( aMuze ) owes Ms.

Haas $2,714.03 for expenses she incurred for its benefit. [ 3 ] However, Ms. Rice denied owing Ms. Haas any other amount for claimed services rendered that were part of a potential partnership process that failed. [ 4 ] Also, Ms. Rice pleaded that there was no legal, contractual or other relationship between Bricks 4 Kidz and Ms. Haas. [ 5 ] The Court sides with Ms. Rice in that respect. QUESTIONS IN DISPUTE [ 6 ] (

a) Has Ms. Haas established that there was a contract for services with aMuze? (

b) Can Ms. Haas sue aMuze on the basis of unjust enrichment? (

c) Has Ms. Haas established that there was a tacit partnership? CONTEXT [ 7 ] Donna Rice is a business woman who operates, in particular, a company that offers recreational and educational activities for children and families. [ 8 ] In 2014, Ms. Haas met Ms. Rice and they struck up a friendship. [ 9 ] Subsequently, Ms. Haas became interested in a new company that Ms.

Rice wanted to set up in order to offer recreational and educational activities for children and families; the company operates under the name aMuze and its premises are located in Pointe- Claire. [ 10 ] As time passed, Karen Mikhail joined the discussions with a view to becoming a business partner in that company, with Ms. Haas and Ms. Rice. [ 11 ] Ms. Rice did not contest the fact that Ms. Haas worked at aMuze’s commercial outlet.

However, she added that everything was done on a volunteer basis with a view to creating the business partnership, which the parties discussed more specifically beginning in April 2015. [ 12 ] The emails exchanged between the parties show that, at the beginning of June 2015, the partnership became impossible, so they

stopped all discussions in that respect. [ 13 ] On June 16, 2015, Ms. Haas wrote to Ms. Rice to claim $2,714.03 from her, in relation to expenses that she had incurred for the benefit of aMuze. The Court notes that, in that email, Ms. Haas did not refer to any other amount that she was allegedly owed further to any work she may have done for aMuze’s benefit. [ 14 ] By email on October 13, 2015, Ms. Rice acknowledged owing that amount to Ms. Haas. [ 15 ] On January 7, 2016, Ms. Rice specified in writing that she agreed to pay Ms. Haas that amount upon receipt of invoices, which occurred, since at the trial Ms.

Rice reiterated her willingness to pay Ms. Haas the various items, which total $2,714.03. [ 16 ] However, at the same time, Ms. Rice noted that she did not intend to pay “any compensation for the claimed ‘work done and services provided’”. ANALYSIS [ 17 ] This dispute will be decided by applying the general rules of evidence. [ 18 ] In civil law, the burden of proof is on Plaintiff’s shoulders in accordance with the principle provided for in

article 2803 of the Code civil du Québec ( C.c.Q. ) which states “a person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based”. [ 19 ] The Court must weigh the probabilities pursuant to

article 2804 C.c.Q . which states “evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence”. In other words, the Court must establish what is more probable and likely. [ 20 ] After analysis, the Court concludes that Ms. Haas has not discharged her burden of proof to establish that there was a contract for services with aMuze. [ 21 ] No testimony or document supports Ms. Haas in that regard. [ 22 ] Regarding the claim of unjust enrichment, the rules in articles 1493 and 1494 of the Civil Code of Québec must be consulted: 1493 .

A person who is enriched at the expense of another shall, to the extent of his enrichment, indemnify the other for the latter’s correlative impoverishment, if there is no justification for the enrichment or the impoverishment. 1494 . Enrichment or impoverishment is justified where it results from the performance of an obligation, from the failure of the person impoverished to exercise a right of which he may avail himself or could have availed himself against the person enriched, or from

an act performed by the person impoverished for his personal and exclusive interest or at his own risk and peril, or with a consistent liberal intention . [ 23 ] Even though Ms. Haas did some work for the benefit of aMuze, she filed no evidence establishing any enrichment of aMuze. [ 24 ] Moreover, if there was impoverishment of Ms. Haas, it was justified by her desire to negotiate and enter into a business partnership with Ms. Rice and Ms.

Mikhail. [ 25 ] The time that she devoted to aMuze and the work that she did therefore fall into the category of her “personal and exclusive interest”, or, at least, she proceeded “at [her] own risk and peril”. [ 26 ] That being the case, the principles of unjust enrichment cannot help Ms. Haas to establish the merits of her claim against aMuze. [ 27 ] Lastly, Ms. Haas alleged that there was a tacit partnership with aMuze, entitling her to claim “remuneration” for the services rendered. [ 28 ] With respect, after analysis, the Court concludes that Ms.

Haas has not discharged her burden of establishing that there was any form of tacit partnership at all. [ 29 ] On the contrary, both the testimonial and documentary evidence shows that the parties engaged in discussions with a view to establishing a partnership, but that they failed. [ 30 ] Finally, the Court notes that Ms.

Haas produced no time sheet, table or statement of account showing the number of hours and work done for the benefit of aMuze. [ 31 ] The Court understands that this is the case because the initial claim targeted only the $2,714.03 in expenses that she incurred. [ 32 ] Consequently, the Court concludes that Ms. Haas has not discharged her burden of establishing the merits of her claim for any amount above $2,714.03. THEREFORE, the Court: GRANTS in

part Isabella Haas’s claim against 9291059 Canada Inc. (aMuze Group);

DISMISSES Isabella Haas’s claim against 8762236 Canada Inc. (Bricks 4 Kidz), without costs; CONDEMNS 9291059 Canada Inc. (aMuze Group) to pay Isabella Haas $2,714.03 with interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity provided for in

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec , from June 19, 2015; CONDEMNS 9291059 Canada Inc. (aMuze Group) to pay Isabella Haas $185 as legal costs. ____________________________ Henri Richard J.C.Q. Date of hearing : May 4, 2017