2017 QCCQ 14193, 2017 QCCQ 14193

Albov c. Stanev 2017 QCCQ 14193 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-153765-161 DATE: October 31, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY EDWARDS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ VALENTIN ALBOV Plaintiffs v.

BORISLAV STANEV -and- VIOLINA KRASTEVA Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On July 30, 2014, Plaintiff loaned to Defendant Borislav Stanev the amount of $800. Plaintiff submits as evidence a bank statement showing the withdrawal of that amount (Exhibit P-1) on that date. [ 2 ] Defendants acknowledges the existence of the loan. However, they state that the amount owed was repaid on June 19, 2015, when Plaintiff left a birthday party that they were hosting. [ 3 ]

Article 2803 of the Civil Code of Quebec , in the

section regarding Evidence , states: “A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. A person who claims that a right is null, has been modified or is extinguished shall prove the facts on which he bases his claim.” [ 4 ] The second paragraph of this

article means that Defendants have the burden of proof that they repaid the loan. Defendants state that they refunded the whole amount owed, without previous notice to Plaintiff, at the end of the birthday party. This is categorically denied by Plaintiff. [ 5 ] But Defendants’ testimony is contradictory on several points regarding the alleged refund. Mr. Stanev states that he gradually saved up the money that was kept in Defendants’ apartment and that it was paid entirely at the end of the party. On her part, Ms. Krasteva states that she withdrew the money from the bank a day or two before the party.

After questioning by the Court on this contradiction, Defendants mentioned a new version of events that some of the money was withdrawn and another part was saved gradually. [ 6 ] Defendants’ version of events has evolved and this undermines the credibility of their version of events, the accuracy of such version and accordingly of their defence.

[ 7 ] Furthermore, Ms. Krasteva first states that the refund money was not counted, just like the receipt of the loan initially. Then she states that she had counted the money the day before the party. [ 8 ] The Plaintiff’s version of events is based partially on his bank statement filed into evidence with his legal proceeding. Defendants’ revised version of events is that some of the refund was withdrawn from their bank account.

It is surprising that Defendants did not file into the Court a bank statement contemporaneous to the date of the alleged refund which would show the withdrawal. [ 9 ] As stated, Defendants have the burden of proof to establish the repayment of the loan. As a result of the lack of evidence and the contradictions and inconsistencies in the versions of events presented by Defendants, the Court decides that Defendants have failed to discharge their burden of proof that the loan was in fact paid. [ 10 ] However, the evidence also shows that the loan was only between Mr. Valentin Albov and Mr. Borislav Stanev, not Ms.

Violina Krasteva. For this reason, Mr. Stanev alone will be condemned to repay the amount of the loan under the present judgment. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS in part Plaintiff Valentin Albov’s claim; CONDEMNS Borislav Stanev to pay Valentin Albov the amount of $800, with legal interest of 5% per year, plus the additional indemnity provided at

Article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec , from the date of the Demand Letter, being July 21, 2016 (Exhibit P-2); CONDEMNS Borislav Stanev to pay legal costs (Court stamp fee) of $100. __________________________________ Jeffrey Edwards, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: October 31, 2017