2015 QCCQ 5622, 2015 QCCQ 5622

Lacroix c. Wall 2015 QCCQ 5622 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-139614-137 DATE: APRIL 30, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE JULIE VEILLEUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ FABIAN LACROIX […] Lachine, Québec […] Plaintiff vs.

TERRY WALL […] Pierrefonds, Québec […] Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff claims an amount of $3,414.48 for professional services. Defendant denies owing the amount claimed considering that he never got the design he was expecting from Plaintiff. QUESTION AT ISSUE [ 2 ] Is Plaintiff entitled to the payment of his professional services? THE CONTEXT [ 3 ] Plaintiff has been an architectural technician for the last 25 years.

On April 8, 2010, Defendant called him as he wanted some work to be done on his house located in Pierrefonds (the residence). They set-up a meeting which was held on April 18, 2010 at Defendant's residence. The parties discussed what Defendant and his wife had in mind, namely additional storage space. At that point, the architectural agreement (the agreement) was signed by the parties.

Said agreement concerns the outline of basic services during the preliminary phase, the construction phase and the project management phase. [ 4 ] In a nutshell, the parties agreed that Plaintiff would be paid on an hourly rate of $75 for the preliminary phase, which consisted in the preliminary drawings. Parties have also agreed on an interest rate of 5% per annum. [ 5 ] Parties both testified that there were a few meetings following which drawings were submitted by Plaintiff on July 23 rd , 2010.

The drawings were reviewed by Defendant and his wife and there were changes made by Plaintiff in accordance with Defendant's requests. [ 6 ] On August 19, another meeting took place to review the new plans following which additional drawings were sent to Defendant on August 25. In the following weeks and months, Plaintiff had the impression that the project «went cold» and therefore put his work on hold. It is in April of 2012 that Plaintiff sent an invoice to Defendant. Said invoice refers specifically to dates and time involved. The invoice is in the amount of $2,414.48.

A few months later, on August 24, 2012, he sent a letter of default. [ 7 ] At the hearing, the different drawings prepared by Plaintiff are filed into the Court record. [ 8 ] Defendant did not contest the agreement nor the fact that he mandated Plaintiff to do some drawings. However, he argued that Plaintiff never understood their need as they only requested for attic storage and not a third floor.

Finally, Defendant argued that he was misled by Plaintiff who provided design concepts which he didn't ask for. [ 9 ] Plaintiff claimed his professional fees together with an amount of $1,000.00 for trouble and inconveniences related to his unpaid invoice. ANALYSIS

[ 10 ] The agreement signed by the parties is a contract for services governed by sections 2098 and following of the Civil Code of Québec . The relevant sections read as follows: 2098. A contract of enterprise or for services is a contract by which a person, the contractor or the provider of services, as the case may be, undertakes to another person, the client, to carry out physical or intellectual work or to supply a service, for a price which the client binds himself to pay to him. 2099.

The contractor or the provider of services is free to choose the means of performing the contract and, with respect to such performance, no relationship of subordination exists between the contractor or the provider of services and the client. […] 2125. The client may unilaterally resiliate the contract even though the work or provision of service is already in progress. […] 2129.

Upon resiliation of the contract, the client is bound to pay to the contractor or the provider of services , in proportion to the agreed price, the actual costs and expenses, the value of the work performed before the end of the contract or before the notice of resiliation and, as the case may be, the value of the property supplied, where it can be put into his hands and used by him. For his part, the contractor or the provider of services is bound to repay any advances he has received in excess of what he has earned.

In either case, each party is liable for any other injury that the other party may have suffered. [ 11 ] In view of the foregoing, it is clear that Defendant had the right to resiliate the agreement with Plaintiff, which he did implicitly after the last meeting. However, he must pay for the services rendered at the time of resiliation [1] . [ 12 ] In the present case, the services were rendered by Plaintiff from the month of April 2010 up until the end of August of 2010.

The details contained in the invoice sent to Defendant corroborate the chronology explained by Plaintiff at the hearing. [ 13 ] Considering the above and the content of the agreement, the Court finds that Defendant is obliged toward Plaintiff for the services totalling $2,100.00 plus taxes, with the 5% interest rate agreed upon by the parties. [ 14 ] However, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any specific damages for trouble and inconveniences other than the usual frustration arising from an unpaid invoice and the need to take proceedings. Therefore, his claim for damages is dismissed.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS in part Fabian Lacroix's claim against Terry Wall; CONDEMNS Terry Wall to pay Fabian Lacroix an amount of $2,414.48 with 5% interest together with the additional indemnity as per

Section 1619 C.C.Q. as of April 9, 2012; THE WHOLE , with costs ($136). __________________________________ JULIE VEILLEUX, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: April 20, 2015