2018 QCCQ 2260, 2018 QCCQ 2260

Zhang c. Zhou 2018 QCCQ 2260 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-154965-166 DATE: April 11, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HANG ZHANG Plaintiff v.

SAIYA ZHOU Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Hang Zhang claims from Saiya Zhou the repayment of a $6,000 loan which the parties entered into in May 2015 and which he claims has never been repaid. [ 2 ] Mrs. Zhou admits that she borrowed money from Mr. Zhang, but claims that the loan was for 6,000 Chinese Renminbi and not $6,000. [1] Question in Dispute Did Mrs. Zhou borrow $6,000 or 6,000 Chinese Renminbi in May 2015? Analysis and Decision [ 3 ] Mr.

Zhang claims that on May 30, 2015, he entered into a loan agreement payable on demand with Mrs. Zhou whereby he lent her $6,000. The funds were disbursed in cash. [ 4 ] Mrs. Zhou does not deny that she borrowed money from Mr. Zhang, but she claims that the loan was for 6,000 Renminbi, the Chinese currency, and not $6,000. [ 5 ] Mrs. Zhou and Mr. Zhang met in Cuba in 2014 while on holidays. They had a romantic relationship some time in 2015, which ultimately turned sour in the fall 2015. Mr. Zhang was married throughout this period. [ 6 ] In September 2016, Mr. Zhang wrote to Mrs.

Zhou seeking repayment of the Loan. [2] [ 7 ] Whether the loan was denominated in Canadian dollars or in Chinese Renminbi makes a significant difference. If the loan was denominated in Chinese Renminbi, the amount of the loan is $1,200 as of the trial date based on the currency conversion rate prevailing at that time. [ 8 ] As in any civil case, Mr.

Zhang has the burden of proving that on the balance of probabilities, the loan was denominated in Canadian dollars. [3] [ 9 ] The balance of probabilities standard requires that proof be clear and convincing and based upon cogent evidence. [4] [ 10 ] The loan entered into on May 30, 2015 between the parties was drafted in mandarin (“Loan”). [5] [ 11 ] Mr. Zhang filed into evidence a French translation of the Loan. [6] According to the French translation, the Loan was denominated in Canadian currency and stated as follows: La présente est pour confirmer que j’ai emprunté $6 000 chez ZHANG Hang.

ZHANG Hang a le droit de demander le remboursement à tout moment. Zhou Saiya 2015-05-30

Traduit par Zude Le, traducteur agréé, membre de l’OTTIAQ. [signature and seal of the translator] [ 12 ] Zude Le, the official translator who translated the Loan into French, did not testify at trial. [ 13 ] However, the Court heard Mrs. Isabelle Fu, an official Court translator, read the Loan and translated it into French and English at trial. According to Mrs. Fu, the English translation of the Loan reads as follows: Today I borrowed from Zhang Hang 6,000 Yuan. Zhang Hang has the right to ask me to pay back the loan at any time. [ 14 ] Mrs.

Fu explains that a yuan is a unit of currency and does not necessarily correspond to the Chinese currency, the Renminbi. She adds that the parties’ use of the term “yuan” in Mandarin in the Loan does not indicate that the Loan was for a specific currency, much less the Canadian dollar. Ultimately, according to Mrs. Fu, the currency in the Loan is unknown and could be in Canadian dollars or in Renminbi. [ 15 ] The Court must therefore rely on the parties’ testimony to determine in which currency the Loan was made, since the document is incomplete and not clear. [ 16 ] Mrs.

Zhou affirms that the Loan was in Chinese Renminbi. She explains that she needed Chinese currency because she intended to travel to China shortly after the Loan was entered into on May 30, 2015. Mrs. Zhou did in fact travel to China from July 13 until August 6, 2015 according to an electronic boarding pass which she submitted into evidence as well as from an excerpt from her passport. [7] [ 17 ] Mr. Zhang testified that the Loan was denominated in Canadian dollars. He offered no evidence to corroborate this assertion.

He claims that he obtained the funds for the cash loan by using $1,500 of his own money and $4,500 which he borrowed from friends. He could have entered into evidence withdrawal slips form his bank evidencing the withdrawal of $1,500 and documentary evidence witnessing the $4,500 loan from his friends, yet he did not. His explanation simply does not seem plausible, all the more so given the backdrop of the parties’ romantic falling out. [ 18 ] As stated above, Mr. Zhang had the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that the Loan was denominated in Canadian dollars.

He has not discharged this burden of proof. [ 19 ] The documentary evidence as well as the evidence offered to the Court by the Court translator establishes that the denomination of the Loan is not clear. Likewise, according to the testimony heard at trial, it is not more probable that the Loan was denominated in Canadian dollars than in Chinese Renminbi. [8] [ 20 ] Mrs. Zhou’s testimony is credible and reliable. She asserted frankly and clearly that the loan was not in Canadian dollars but rather in Renminbi.

There is no reason to set aside her testimony. [ 21 ] For all these reasons, the Court concludes that the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the loan was denominated in Canadian dollars. Since Mrs. Zhou admits to owing 6,000 Renminbi, the Court will order her to repay this amount to Mr. Zhang, as converted to Canadian dollars according to the currency conversion rate which prevailed on the date of trial, namely 1 Canadian dollar converts to 5 Renminbi.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] GRANTS in part Hang Zhang’s Application; [ 23 ] CONDEMNS Saiya Zhou to pay to Hang Zhang $1,200 with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided for in

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec as of September 28, 2016; [ 24 ] WITH COSTS of $185 which represents the court fee paid on the Application. __________________________________ ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: December 12, 2017