2017 QCCQ 8239, 2017 QCCQ 8239

Mendo c. Funkel 2017 QCCQ 8239 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU No: 550-32-023171-165 DATE: June 20, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE MARIE MICHELLE LAVIGNE ______________________________________________________________________ MARINO MENDO Plaintiff v. MATHIEU FUNKEL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. Marino Mendo, attorney, claims from Mr.

Mathieu Funkel the amount of $252.95 for legal services rendered. [ 2 ] Mr. Funkel refuses to pay this amount. He alleges that he never gave a mandate to Mr. Mendo to represent him in Court. [ 3 ] The facts are as follows. [ 4 ] In April 2015, Mr. Funkel was facing charges for drunk driving and obstruction of justice. [ 5 ] He contacted the offices of Mr. Mendo to inquire about the legal services he could obtain. His court appearance was scheduled on April 29, 2015. [ 6 ] On the phone, he talked to a law clerk of Mr. Mendo named Vincent. He asked about the legal representations that could be available.

He was given some information by Vincent. He was informed that a cash retainer of $500.00 would be requested. [ 7 ] Mr. Funkel later decided not to retain the services of Mr. Mendo. [ 8 ] To his surprise, Mr. Mendo appeared on his behalf at the hearing of April 29 th . Since, Mr. Funkel had retained the services of another attorney, she later took charge of his defence. [ 9 ] After his appearance in Court, Mr. Mendo sent an account for professional services to Mr. Funkel. Mr. Funkel did not pay it. Mr. Mendo proceeded to obtain a judgment by default against Mr. Funkel. [ 10 ] Mr.

Funkel presented a motion for the revocation of the judgment. Mr. Funkel proved that he was not aware of the judgment, therefore the Court grants the revocation of the judgment and proceeds to hear the case on the merits. [ 11 ] Mr. Mendo has the burden to prove that a legal mandate was given to him for the representation of Mr. Funkel in Court. [ 12 ] Mr. Mendo admits that he never talked with Mr. Funkel. The discussions took place between Mr. Funkel and his law clerk Vincent. The law clerk is not present in Court to testify on the mandate presumably given by Mr. Funkel to Mr.

Mendo and the existence of the mandate is contested. [ 13 ] Considering the absence of the law clerk to prove the agreement entered into between Mr. Funkel and Mr. Mendo; [ 14 ] Considering that Mr. Mendo has the burden to prove the existence of a contract for professional services (

Article 2803 C.c.Q ); [ 15 ] Considering that the proof of this mandate has not been made. [ 16 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the claim of Marino Mendo against Mathieu Funkel; THE WHOLE with legal costs.

__________________________________ MARIE MICHELLE LAVIGNE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: June 12, 2017