2015 QCCQ 16634, 2015 QCCQ 16634

Peizler & Vani Attorneys, s.a. c. Strohl 2015 QCCQ 16634 JV0516 COURT OF QUEBEC « Small Claims Division » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL « Civil Division » N° : 500-32-139847-133 DATE : April 8, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY: THE HONORABLE SUZANNE VADBONCOEUR, C.Q.J. ______________________________________________________________________ PEIZLER & VANI ATTORNEYS S.A. Plaintiff v.

MARC STROHL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff, a law firm based in Quebec, claims the sum of $1,543.55 from the Defendant as fees related to professional services provided to and for the benefit of the latter between August and October 2011. [ 2 ] The Defendant, who lives in New York, denies owing that amount, alleging that the firm unduly took over the mandate to represent the estate of the late Herby Strohl, father of the Defendant, and then, without any valid reason or motive, abruptly ceased representing him on October 21, 2011. [ 3 ] The Plaintiff claims the fees for services, which, according to the Defendant, were never provided since they preceded or followed the mandate as such.

THE FACTS [ 4 ] According to the testimony rendered by the Plaintiff’s representative, M e Giulio B. Vani, the law firm was commissioned by the Defendant to represent his interests in relation to the defamatory statements made by Debra Strohl (his half-sister) and Nancy Pedvis (his stepmother) with regard to his father, Herby Strohl, the whole as it appears from the written mandate produced as exhibit P-1. [ 5 ] Although the mandate was signed by M e Vani on September 16, 2011, it had been given and signed by the Defendant in the month of August.

In fact, the professional services began on August 5, 2011, as it appears on the first invoice for fees dated October 13, 2011 (P-2). [ 6 ] M e Vani’s services had also been retained in 1998 by Mr.

Strohl’s estate for the same reasons and a letter had been sent on that matter on September 3, 1998 (D-1). [ 7 ] In accordance with mandate P-1 and with the agreement on fees included in the mandate, a first deposit in the amount of $750 (plus taxes) was paid and the hourly fee was established at $240 per hour. [ 8 ] A letter with the same content as the one of 1998 was sent to the same two persons, Debra Strohl and Nancy Pedvis, following several preliminary versions, on October 4, 2011, as per exhibit P-7(15). The letter asked them to sign the retraction form that was enclosed.

That letter had to be sent prior to the wedding of the Defendant’s half-sister, Debra, which was supposed to take place within the following weeks, that is, in November. [ 9 ] The Defendant considers that the letter was sent in the name of his father’s estate, which deeply angered him – and had the same effect on his sister Tammy, a Florida lawyer – given the fact that the estate had been settled for more than ten years, that he had never been its liquidator, and that the client of the Plaintiff’s law firm was not the estate but himself, personally.

[ 10 ] Since the answer received following that letter was not satisfactory, Mr. Strohl asked M e Vani to proceed with his request for an injunction in an urgent manner, before October 21, 2011, since the date of the wedding had been set forward to October 27, and the request for an injunction was to be an incitement for the family members not to attend that wedding. [ 11 ] Instead, M e Vani withdrew from the file on that same date, alleging the lack of time to fulfill his mandate in a proper manner.

He had indeed two files to plead before the Court of Appeal at the end of October (see the two judgments under P-8). [ 12 ] Being of the opinion that M e Vani’s withdrawal came at the wrong time and lacked professionalism, Mr. Strohl filed a complaint with the Quebec Bar Syndic on November 8, 2011 (P-6). [ 13 ] However, his complaint was not upheld, as stated in the letter by M e Edith Delisle produced as exhibit P-3. [ 14 ] M e Vani elaborated seven versions of the notice to perform ( mise en demeure ), which was finally sent on October 4, 2011.

They appear on different tabs of exhibit P-7. [ 15 ] The Plaintiff’s firm sent two invoices for fees (P-2) to the Defendant. They are respectively dated October 13 and December 6, 2011. [ 16 ] Mr. Strohl, the Defendant, considers that even though M e Vani had prepared seven versions, there is but one single letter. His fees are therefore too high in view of the work accomplished.

With regard to that, he specifies that nothing was done, either prior to September 16 or after October 4, 2011. [ 17 ] Furthermore, he reproaches M e Vani with not having warned him that he would not have the time to complete his preliminary injunction request before the wedding. He adds that M e Vani relinquished his mandate with no reason on the very same day that Mr. Strohl expected the request to be notified. [ 18 ] The Defendant retained the services of another attorney a few days after October 21, 2011.

The latter did finally notify and produce his motion for an injunction on time. [ 19 ] The Defendant indicates that M e Vani never answered his calls, his e-mails, or his faxes. [ 20 ] He received the invoices for the fees only through the answer from M e Vani to the Quebec Bar. Nevertheless, exhibit P-7(26) represents a letter dated October 14, 2011, sent by e-mail by M e Vani, with the invoice for fees of October 13, 2011 annexed to it. That is invoice #2362368. [ 21 ] As for the invoice of December 6, 2011, it looks as if it was sent with M e Vani’s letter bearing the same date, as shown on exhibit P-7(27).

That invoice is identified by number 2362423. Thus, in the sequential order, there are 55 invoices sent between those two dates. ANALYSIS [ 22 ] In any legal recourse, the plaintiff must demonstrate to the Court, by a preponderant proof, the well-founded basis of his/her claims, in accordance with sections 2803 and 2804 of the Code civil du Québec , which read as follows: “ 2803. A person wishing to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. A person who alleges the nullity, modification or extinction of a right, shall prove the facts on which he bases his allegation. 2804.

Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. “ [ 23 ] In the case at hand, the Court considers that the Plaintiff’s firm has met its burden of proof. [ 24 ] In fact, it is false to affirm, as the Defendant does, that the notice to perform P-7 (15) reproduces almost entirely the letter sent in 1998. Mr. Strohl affirms that M e Vani even went so far as to reproduce the formatting bullets inscribed in that letter.

That is totally untrue : no bullet appears on the letter of October 4, 2011. [ 25 ] Furthermore, the Court considers that if seven (7) versions had been necessary, it is because the Defendant had demands that M e Vani was not always ready to include in the notice to perform since they might have constituted by themselves

an act of defamation and might have placed M e Vani in a dangerous situation. [ 26 ] In addition, it is inexact to affirm that the versions were almost all identical. It suffices to read them all to be convinced of the contrary. Only with regards to the length, we must highlight that the first version dated August 18, 2011 was one and a half pages long, while the last version, dated October 4, is made up of three pages. [ 27 ] We can also see that almost all the versions contain deletions, crossed out paragraphs, and handwritten comments.

From several of them, M e Vani had to remove sentences, even entire paragraphs, which he estimated had defamatory content. [ 28 ] Regarding the period covered by M e Vani’s professional services, the Defendant states that nothing had been done either before September 16 or after October 4, 2011. The Court cannot subscribe to that assertion.

[ 29 ] In fact, the first versions of the notice to perform are dated the month of August 2011. The e-mail dated August 22, 2011 (P-7 (6)) mentions, “Enclosed please find a revise (sic) version of the letter for your review.” Consequently, that indicates that there had been another version prior to that date. Furthermore, several e-mails are dated August 22, 2011, as well as September 11 and 12, 2011, which proves that some work had clearly been done before September 16, 2011. [ 30 ] With regards to the dates after October 4, Mr.

Strohl himself admits that M e Vani put an end to his mandate on October 21, 2011, which the latter was perfectly allowed to do considering that it was becoming increasingly difficult for him to respect his clients’ demands, not only with regards to the contents of the written documents, but also with regards to their deadlines.

We can see as evidence several e-mails dated between October 4 and 21, 2011. [ 31 ] Therefore, the Defendant’s argument to the effect of the period covered by M e Vani’s professional services does not stand up. [ 32 ] Finally, both M e Vani’s testimony and the reading of the detail of the two invoices for fees convince the Court that the professional services were rendered at the agreed hourly rate, and that the fees charged on the invoices are not exaggerated but rather totally reasonable. [ 33 ] The decision of the office of the Syndic of the Bar (P-3) to not retain against M e Vani any fact or attitude that might have contravened professional ethics leans in favor of the absence of motives to demand that M e Vani appear before a discipline council in spite of what the Defendant may think.

FOR THE ABOVE STATED MOTIVES, THE COURT : GRANTS the Plaintiff’s action; CONDEMNS the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $1,543.55 plus the interest calculated on the basis of the legal rate of 5% per annum and the additional indemnity stated under

section 1619 of the Code civil du Québec from August 7, 2013, as well as the costs of the judicial stamp in the amount of $156. __________________________________ SUZANNE VADBONCOEUR, C.Q.J. Date of hearing : September 16, 2014