2014 QCCQ 10095, 2014 QCCQ 10095

Bellefontaine c. Tsotas 2014 QCCQ 10095 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-131961-122 DATE: September 29, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ NICHOLAS BELLEFONTAINE […] Pincourt, Qc […] Plaintiff v.

KOSTA TSOTAS […] Ville Saint-Laurent, Qc […] Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff Nicholas Bellefontaine sues the Defendant Kosta Tsotas alleging that he carried out work at the Defendant’s residence for a value of more than $10,000.00. [ 2 ] He sues for $7,000.00, the limit in the Small Claims Division; [ 3 ] The Defendant is the former spouse of the owner of the property and, as such, contracted with Mr Bellefontaine for substantial renovation works in the home. [ 4 ] At the hearing, Mr Bellefontaine did not attend and the case proceeded without him.

Therefore, there is no evidence to establish the Plaintiff’s claim. [ 5 ] The Defendant denies owing the amount claimed, alleging that the Plaintiff left the work site with the work incomplete and of inacceptable quality. He alleges that it was necessary to demolish most of what was done and start the project over. [ 6 ] The work was carried out by the Plaintiff in the summer of 2011. When the Defendant left on September 24, 2011, he wanted to be paid but the Defendant refused. [ 7 ] Until that point, the Defendant had paid for materials and the Plaintiff had supplied labour.

[ 8 ] Mr Tsotas obtained a detailed property inspection report from Aspect Inspection, Montreal, Quebec, dated February 17, 2012 (exhibit D-4).

The report shows numerous defects and uncompleted aspects of the work. [ 9 ] The report concludes that the work would have to be completely restarted and that very little of what has been done could be salvaged. [ 10 ] In cases such as this one, where the Plaintiff did not attend and establish the facts of his case, it is simply a question of dismissing the action, because there is no evidence. [ 11 ] As for the counterclaim, the Plaintiff testified that he provided more than $13,000.00 for materials. Exhibit D-3 is a sheath of invoices showing purchases of building materials at the relevant time.

The Court accepts the Defendant’s testimony, supported by this documentary evidence, as sufficient proof that he lost $12,000.00 in the venture as a result of the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the work properly. [ 12 ] It turns out, as well, that the Plaintiff did not have the proper licences from the Régie du bâtiment du Québec, a fact that puts in doubt his capacity to enter into such a contract and to carry it properly to completion.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s Demand; CONDEMNS the Plaintiff, Nicholas Bellefontaine, to pay to the Defendant Kostas Tsotas the sum of $7,000.00, together with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided at

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec . CONDEMNS the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant, judicial costs of $ 231.00. __________________________________ DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: September 9, 2014