2023 QCCQ 997, 2023 QCCQ 997

Trudeau c. Decarie 2023 QCCQ 997 COURT OF QUÉBEC « Small Claims Division » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF PONTIAC TOWN OF CAMPBELL’S BAY « Civil Division » N° : 555-32-700065-218 DATE : March 3 rd 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PATSY BOUTHILLETTE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ JAMES TRUDEAU SR. Plaintiff c.

RAYMOND DECARIE Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ OVERVIEW [ 1 ] The plaintiff claims $ 1 305 from the defendant as compensation for the repairs he had to do on his machinery because of the actions of the defendant. [ 2 ] The defendant denies the claim arguing the absence of a fault, and that the damages are exaggerated and unfounded. [ 3 ] The defendant counterclaim the plaintiff for an amount of $ 13 000 for the damages he suffered because of his actions.

ISSUES [ 4 ] The issues are as follows :

i) Did the defendant commit a fault, making it liable for the damages caused to the plaintiff's property? ii) If so, what is the number of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled? iii) Did the plaintiff commit a fault, making it liable for the damages caused to the plaintiff's? ANALYSIS

i) Did the defendant commit a fault, making it liable for the damages caused to the plaintiff's property? [ 5 ] The plaintiff claims damages on the ground that the defendant and his friend, Bruce Caufield, knowingly put bundles of snow on the private road “Chemin Belfast”. [ 6 ] These actions, according to the plaintiff and his witnesses, cause snow to turn into hard snow or ice, causing damages to the plaintiff machinery. [ 7 ] The plaintiff obtains from the Association of owners of Chemin Belfast [1] the contract for the removal of the snow during that winter. [ 8 ] The evidence established without any doubt the constant quarrel between the residents of that private road. [ 9 ] Many videos were produce confirming those quarrels, the non respect of the basic’s rules of civilities. [ 10 ] The defendant and/or Bruce Caufield, asked the police force to intervene in incidents involving the plaintiff, and some of the witnesses during the past years. [ 11 ] The police advised the parties not to be in contact, but no criminal charges followed those visits.

[ 12 ] Those facts can not be dispute, but are they enough to prove a fault according to the law? [ 13 ] To succeed in his application, Mr. Trudeau and Mr Decarie in his counterclaim, must prove by preponderant evidence the facts on which his claim is based, in accordance with articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec , which read as follows: 2803. A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. A person who claims that a right is null, has been modified or is extinguished shall prove the facts on which he bases his claim. 2804.

Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. [ 14 ] The dispute between all the parties is well proven, but to prove that the damages claims are dues specifically because of the actions of the defendant, or the plaintiff in the counterclaim, that proof must be made by preponderance, which was not the case. [ 15 ] The plaintiff is doing snow plowing with his machineries. To succeed in his claim, he should have demonstrated that the specific actions of the defendant, was the cause of the breakage of his machinery.

That proof was not made. [ 16 ] Furthermore, even if the plaintiff would have demonstrated that the breakage was cause by the defendant, his proof of damages was not done accordingly with his burden of proof. [ 17 ] The explanation of the plaintiff did not convince the court of the damages claim. [ 18 ] Even if the plaintiff demonstrated some damages to his machinery, he did not prove that those damages were the specific consequence of the actions of the defendant. [ 19 ] Furthermore, the plaintiff claim that he had to work for 15 hours just to remove to snow put on the road by the defendant.

That claim is obviously not founded, just in regard of the price paid by the association to have the whole road snowplowed. iii) Did the plaintiff commit a fault, making it liable for the damages caused to the plaintiff? [ 20 ] For all the reasons already disclose, the defendant won’t succeed in his counterclaim. [ 21 ] First, let say that the harassment was mutual, and it is difficult to know, which one was the starting point of the other. [ 22 ] The police reports consist of the declaration of the defendant and his wife.

After the incident, the police didn’t file accusations against the plaintiff or his employee. [ 23 ] The defendant went to the hospital, and the report did not conclude with anything major.

In fact, the report of the scan is referring to “légers changements dégénératifs du sus-épineux”, without other explanation, that is not a proof that it was cause by the plaintiff. [ 24 ] For his counterclaim, the defendant had the burden of proof. [ 25 ] With the facts presented to the court, it is not possible to conclude to any responsibility with the plaintiff, as alleged by the defendant. [ 26 ] As for 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. [ 27 ] In this case, the Court finds that this is a situation that justifies deviating from the usual rule since this case could easily have had another outcome. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 28 ] DISMISSES the application of the plaintiff and the counterclaim of the defendant, each party to pay its own costs. __________________________________ PATSY BOUTHILLETTE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: February 16, 2023