Ahmed c. Videotron 2018 QCCQ 8071 COURT OF QUÉBEC "Small Claims Division" CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No : 500-32-700481-171 DATE October 30, 2018 UNDER THE PRESIDENCY OF: HONOURABLE ALAIN BREAULT, Q.C.J. ______________________________________________________________________ MIAH AHMED [...] LaSalle (Quebec) [...] Plaintiff v.

VIDEOTRON S.E.N.C. 612 St-Jacques street Montreal (Quebec) H3C 4N8 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVOCATION OF A JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The undersigned judge, sitting in Chamber, is seized with Plaintiff’s application for revocation of the judgment rendered by Judge Luc Huppé, Q.C.J., on September 18, 2018, whereby he dismissed his claim and granted Defendant’s cross-claim. [ 2 ] As a result, Plaintiff was condemned to pay to Defendant the sum of $1 883,19, together with interest at the legal rate, the additional indemnity as provided for in

section 1619 C.c.Q . and legal costs. [ 3 ] In support of his application, Plaintiff states the following : « (…) Videotron produced invoices & document on hearing to the Court, never given to me. Il was not able to contest the amount claimed by Videotron for lack of documentation. I have been asking for document for more than a year. If I receive all the document, I will have more evidence against Videotron. As a Customer it is my right to have all the invoices.

I am appleing (sic) only the counter-claim by Videotron, not the Judgment. (sic) [ 4 ] The application is ill founded in law. [ 5 ] Plaintiff attended at his trial on August 21, 2018. He testified and was heard by Judge Huppé. The trial lasted for a little less than 2 hours. [ 6 ] The minutes of the hearing (procès-verbal) do not show that Plaintiff was taken by surprise or that he requested a postponement

further to Defendant introducing its documents as evidence during the trial. [ 7 ] An application for revocation of a judgment cannot be used to appeal a judgment, whether in whole or in part, or solely to complain about the way one party has introduced evidence during a trial. FOT THESE REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES Plaintiff’s application for revocation of the judgment rendered by Judge Luc Huppé, Q.C.J., on September 18, 2018, the whole with legal costs. __________________________________ ALAIN BREAULT, Q.C.J.