2020 QCCQ 3117, 2020 QCCQ 3117

Crawford c. Dobson 2020 QCCQ 3117 COURT OF QUEBEC “Small Claims Division” CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF PONTIAC LOCALITY OF CAMPBELL’S BAY “Civil Division” No.: 555-32-700042-191 DATE : August 4, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE PATSY BOUTHILLETTE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ RICHARD CRAWFORD [...], Litchfield, Quebec [...] Plaintiff v.

JASON DOBSON [...], Cobden, Ontario [...] Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ OVERVIEW [ 1 ] The plaintiff seeks an amount of $2,730.66, taxes included, for work carried out for the defendant’s benefit. [ 2 ] The defendant denies owing this amount to the plaintiff because he has already paid him $1,000 in cash for the work already carried out.

Moreover, because the plaintiff did not perform the work in accordance with accepted practices, the defendant terminated their agreement. [ 3 ] The Court must determine whether the plaintiff has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that the amounts claimed are owing to him. [ 4 ] The answer to this question is that he has not. ANALYSIS [ 5 ] The Court accepts the defendant’s version, which is more probable than the plaintiff’s. [ 6 ] The parties agreed on a contract payable in cash in the amount of $5,500.

The defendant made one payment of $1,000. [ 7 ] The defendant noted that the plaintiff was not performing his contract in accordance with accepted practices and that he was unlawfully taking material or waste from the site. [ 8 ] The relationship of trust was broken. [ 9 ] The defendant asked the plaintiff to cease work and leave the site. [ 10 ] The evidence shows that the work was performed by another company. [ 11 ] The plaintiff claims the amount of $2,730.66 for the work he allegedly performed before the contract was terminated.

He denies having entered into a contract payable in cash and states that the contract entered into excluded the taxes payable. [ 12 ] The Court does not accept the plaintiff’s version. [ 13 ] There is no evidence establishing a request from the defendant for him to move the material, the hours worked on site, or the hourly rate under the agreement. [ 14 ] Furthermore, the invoices adduced in support of the application seem to have been prepared for the purpose of the hearing. [ 15 ] The evidence shows that on September 29, 2018, the plaintiff performed work and an invoiced for someone.

This invoice bears number 907979. Curiously, the invoices issued to the defendant are dated July 30, August 30, and September 30, 2018, and bear the numbers 907976, 907977, and 907978, respectively, suggesting that they were prepared one after the other. How can it be explained that

the invoice dated on the 29 th of September is numbered after the one dated September 30 th . [ 16 ] The plaintiff had the burden of establishing the basis of his claim on a balance of probabilities, which he has not done. [ 17 ] Regarding legal costs, the first paragraph of

article 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure states: 340 . Legal costs are owed to the party that was successful, unless the court decides otherwise. [ 18 ] In this case, the Court finds that the situation before it justifies setting aside the usual rule. The parties dealt in cash, with the consequence that the contract and the payments are difficult to prove. For this reason, both parties must bear their respective costs. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 19 ] DISMISSES the application, each party to pay its own costs. __________________________________ PATSY BOUTHILLETTE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: July 7, 2020