2020 QCCQ 276, 2020 QCCQ 276

Chen c. Basile 2020 QCCQ 276 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF montreal Civil Division No: 500-32-156687-172 DATE: January 6, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONORABLE CAtherine Pilon J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LING CHEN Plaintiff v.

MTRE VINCENT BASILE Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ling Chen is claiming $15,000 from Mtre Vincent Basile alleging he committed a professional error in proceedings that he undertook on her behalf. She blames him for having sued the wrong party, which led her to incur additional legal fees to redo the proceedings against the right party. [ 2 ] Mtre Basile contests this claim on the basis that the case strategy was discussed throughout with Ms.

Chen, and that it was reasonable to sue the party he had determined based on the facts of the case. Context [ 3 ] Ms. Chen was interested in purchasing a business. She began negotiations with Pierre Giroux who operated a grocery store. The first offers and counter-offers were made in the names of Ms. Chen and Mr. Giroux personally, and not in the names of their respective companies. Both were sole directors and shareholders of these companies. The liquor license was also in the name of Mr. Giroux. [ 4 ] On the day of the closing at the notary, Mr. Giroux did not attend which led to Ms.

Chen retaining the services of Mtre Basile. [ 5 ] Mtre Basile instituted a lawsuit in damages against Mr. Giroux in Superior Court. This was based on a strategy discussed with Ms. Chen because in his opinion, Mr. Giroux was personally at fault. Alternatively, Mr. Giroux countersued Ms. Chen personally, and not her company. [ 6 ] Three weeks before trial, Mr. Giroux changed attorneys. They claimed for the first time that Mr. Giroux was not the right defendant, but rather his company. [ 7 ] After discussing this issue with Ms. Chen, Mtre Basile requested permission to amend the procedures to add Mr.

Giroux’s company as a defendant. This was contested by Mr. Giroux’s attorneys and denied by a Superior Court judge. [ 8 ] As a result, Mtre Basile discontinued the proceedings and reinstituted them on behalf of Ms. Chen and her company against Mr. Giroux and his company. [ 9 ] A month before the delay to inscribe the reinstituted action for proof and hearing on the merits, an issue arose between Mtre Basile and Ms. Chen. Contrary to her previous assertions to Mtre Basile, Ms. Chen did not have the ability to establish that she had the required funds in trust with the notary for the transaction to take place.

This was an essential element to the success of her case. [ 10 ] A further issue arose over settlement discussions with the defendants, such that Mtre Basile felt that he could no longer remain Ms. Chen’s attorney, and he ceased representing her. [ 11 ] Ms. Chen retained another lawyer to take the matter to trial. A judgment was rendered dismissing her lawsuit and granting the crossclaim in part. Analysis [ 12 ] In order to succeed, Ms. Chen had the burden of proving that Mtre Basile committed a fault and that she suffered damages as a result.

[ 13 ] Lawyers are bound by a duty to advise their clients of the strengths and weaknesses of their case, and the risks associated therewith. This duty does not constitute an obligation to guarantee the result of a case. Rather, a lawyer’s conduct will determined by the reasonableness of the advice that was given. [ 14 ] In the present case, given the circumstances of the negotiations to purchase the business, it was reasonable to assess that Mr. Giroux had personally committed a fault which could engage his liability. Moreover, the Superior Court in its judgment on the merits [1] , although it dismissed Ms.

Chen’s action, concluded that she had a sufficient legal interest in suing Mr. Giroux personally. This supports the position taken by Mtre Basile. [ 15 ] Even had Mtre Basile instituted the action at the outset also against Mr. Giroux’s company, it would not have changed the end result seeing the Superior Court’s judgment on the merits. [ 16 ] As for the damages claimed by Ms. Chen alleging that she incurred additional legal fees because Mtre Basile had to reinstitute the action, the evidence shows that the extra work was not billed by Mtre Basile. Accordingly, Ms.

Chen did not demonstrate that she suffered any damages. [ 17 ] Given the above, the Application of the Plaintiff will be dismissed. [ 18 ] However, in light of the facts of this case, the Court will exercise its discretion and the Application will be dismissed without costs. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s Application; WITHOUT Court costs. __________________________________ CATHERINE PILON, j.c.q. Date of hearing: September 30, 2019