2021 QCCQ 9846, 2021 QCCQ 9846

Café Vérité inc. c. Éclair, plomberie & chauffage ltée 2021 QCCQ 9846 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU TOWN OF GATINEAU Civil Division No: 550-32-702084-200 DATE: October 14 th 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE STEVE GUÉNARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ CAFÉ VÉRITÉ INC Plaintiff v.

ÉCLAIR, PLOMBERIE & CHAUFFAGE LTÉE Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] CONSIDERING the Plaintiff’s claim; [ 2 ] CONSIDERING the evidence submitted, at Trial, by the Plaintiff’s President, Mrs. Donica Gonto; [ 3 ] CONSIDERING that the Defendant produced a written Contestation but was absent at Trial, even though duly called upon; [ 4 ] CONSIDERING that the Court authorized the Plaintiff, as per Mrs.

Gonto’s demand, to proceed by default against the Defendant; [ 5 ] CONSIDERING that the Plaintiff operated, at all times relevant to its claim, a restaurant on Sacré-Coeur Boulevard in Gatineau; [ 6 ] CONSIDERING that the preponderant evidence [1] demonstrates that the parties entered into a service contract in 2015; [ 7 ] CONSIDERING that the Defendant agreed to proceed, every 6 months, to the thorough clean-up of the grease trap of the Plaintiff’s restaurant, the whole as per Plaintiff’s own obligations provided in its contract with Public Works Canada; [ 8 ] CONSIDERING that such grease trap was located in the parking garage of the building rented by Plaintiff; [ 9 ] CONSIDERING that the Plaintiff’s representative does not have an easy, and direct, access to such trap; [ 10 ] CONSIDERING Mrs.

Gonto’s testimony and the documentary evidence produced to the Court; [ 11 ] CONSIDERING that the evidence demonstrates that the Defendant had agreed to automatically

schedule such appointments – every six months - for the grease trap clean-ups; [ 12 ] CONSIDERING that the uncontested evidence demonstrates that the Defendant did not proceed to such clean-ups in the allotted, and agreed upon, schedule; [ 13 ] CONSIDERING that the Court is satisfied of the evidence showing a direct link between the lack of clean-ups and the various costs incurred by the Plaintiff; [ 14 ] CONSIDERING that the documentary evidence, notably the Defendant’s own statement of account [2] , do demonstrate that the Defendant’s employee failed to respect the agreed upon

schedule of clean-ups; [ 15 ] CONSIDERING that it was demonstrated to the Court that the delays between the clean-ups were considerably longer than the six months agreed upon period;

[ 16 ] CONSIDERING that the delay was of more than 8 months in 2016, it was of a full year in 2017, of 8 months in 2018 and more than 9 months in 2019; [ 17 ] CONSIDERING the admission of the Defendant’s representative – to Mrs. Gonto as per her testimony - as to the impact of such delays on the back-clogging of the pipes leading up to the grease trap; [ 18 ] CONSIDERING that such delays generated numerous overflows of the grease trap; [ 19 ] CONSIDERING the Defendant’s admission to Mrs.

Gonto that its employee was fired because of a serious lack in such scheduling; [ 20 ] CONSIDERING the documentary evidence demonstrating that the Plaintiff incurred, because of such delays, extra cleaning costs of 3 287,23$, including costs that were charged by the Defendant on the Plaintiff’s credit card [3] without prior, and proper, authorization; [ 21 ] CONSIDERING that the evidence established that such overflowing of the grease trap generated various damages to the Plaintiff, including to its ice machine [4] , the whole as per Mrs.

Gonto’s testimony; [ 22 ] CONSIDERING that the Plaintiff realised in January 2020, acting reasonably and diligently, that the Defendant had failed to meet its obligations, thus causing the alleged damages; [ 23 ] CONSIDERING sections 1458, 2098 and 2100 of the Civil Code of Québec ; [ 24 ] CONSIDERING that no evidence adduced at Trial tends to show that the costs incurred would result of any negligent handling, by Plaintiff, of its restaurant operations; [ 25 ] CONSIDERING that the Plaintiff duly demonstrated, by preponderant evidence, that its claim is well-founded.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the Plaintiff’s claim; CONDEMNS the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of 3 287,23$, with interest at the legal rate, as well as the additional indemnity provided with in

section 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec , to accrue from April 22 nd , 2020 [5] ; THE WHOLE, with the legal costs in favour of the Plaintiff. __________________________________ STEVE GUÉNARD, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: October 13th 2021