Costbusters Inc./Briseurs de prix inc. c. Ho 2016 QCCQ 1265 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-22-206723-135 DATE: February 9, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MAGALI LEWIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ COSTBUSTERS INC. / LES BRISEURS DE PRIX INC. Plaintiff vs.

CHUN FUNG HO and SAU CHU LAM and KAM CHUEN HO and ME SYLVIE DO Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Having sold a commercial condominium unit to the Defendant Chun Fung Ho (thereafter « Defendant Ho ») with a balance of sale price that co-Defendant Me Sylvie Do, notary, (thereafter « Notary Do »), was to hold in trust until the arising of a condition, Plaintiff is claiming $8,000 from the Defendants as payment of the balance of sale price. [ 2 ] Alleging that Notary Do wrongly paid the balance of sale price to Defendant Ho in November of 2011, Plaintiff asks that she be condemned jointly with the other co-defendants to pay him the balance of sale price. [ 3 ] Defendant Ho contests the claim alleging that in execution of the contract of sale he signed with Plaintiff, the balance of sale price should be paid to him. [ 4 ] Co-Defendants Sau Chu Lam and Kam Chuen Ho (thereafter « Defendants Lam and Chuen Ho »), parents of Defendant Ho, were not party to the sale agreement that took place between Plaintiff and Defendant Ho.

Consequently, they contend that the claim against them should be dismissed for lack of legal basis.

Not represented by counsel, all three family members filed a joint plea. [ 5 ] Notary Do contests the claim alleging firstly that when she paid the $8,000 to Defendant Ho in November 2011, she executed Plaintiff’s instructions and, secondly, that whether or not she mistakenly paid the amount is irrelevant now because, after the institution of Plaintiff’s lawsuit, she got Defendant Ho to repay the amount corresponding to the balance of sale price, amount that she still holds in trust to pay to whom ever the Court will determine it should be paid to.

QUESTIONS AT ISSUE [ 6 ] In order to decide the present case, the Court will determine what conditions the parties agreed upon regarding the payment of the balance of sale price. [ 7 ] Whatever the response to that first question, the Court will then determine who, from Plaintiff or Defendant Ho, has respected the terms upon which the balance of sale price could be paid. [ 8 ] The Court will then determine if Notary Do has transgressed the rules of the art of the notarial profession and caused damage to

Plaintiff justifying that she be condemned jointly with the other defendants to pay Plaintiff the balance of sale price. [ 9 ] Finally, the Court will determine whether the lawsuit against Defendants Lam and Chuen Ho is well founded. CONTEXT [ 10 ] On November 27, 2010, Defendants Ho, Lam and Chuen Ho signed a promise to purchase Plaintiff’s commercial unit R-01 located at 2012, boul. St. Laurent in Montreal, a building held in divided co-ownership.

They offered to pay $253,000 for Plaintiff’s unit, the deed of transfer to be signed on or before January 14, 2011, conditional to them getting the property inspected, offer that Plaintiff accepted. [ 11 ] The inspection of the property revealed that the foundation of the building was leaking through a crack in the foundation wall of Plaintiff’s unit.

Two walls of the basement of Plaintiff’s unit had to be demolished to locate the leak. [ 12 ] After that discovery, the parties agreed that the Syndicate of co-owners (thereafter «the Syndicate ») would be responsible for getting the foundation wall repaired and the basement walls that had been demolished, rebuilt.

On January 11, 2011, the promise to purchase was amended to reflect the new situation, and Amendment AM 19997 was signed, providing the following: 4.1 the buyers and seller have agreed to the new price of $238,000 4.2 the deposit of $10,000 was never given to the seller 6.1 any additional amount needed will be added to the mortgage or brought cash 11.1 date for notary on or before february 4th, 2011 basement: the syndicate will be responsible to fix the water infiltration problem as well as finish the walls in the basement . also all carpets are to be removed wood base is to be left there on the floor. note: the price adjustment of $15,000 by the seller was made necessary due to the delays caused by the syndicate in the repairs to the basement. the syndicate is responsible for the work to be done in the basement . [1] (Underscore added) [ 13 ] In consideration of the fact that the leaking foundation of the building was not being repaired as promptly as the parties had anticipated, on February 7, 2011, they signed a second amendment to the promise to purchase, Amended AM 22555 (thereafter «the Amendment ») that reads as follows: 11.1 date for notary on or before february 18, 2011 money in trust and work to be completed $8000 will be withheld ‘in trust’ with buyers notary for 6 months it is the responsibility of the syndicate to repair the water infiltration in the basement and to put back the wall & insulation as they were . if the syndicate does not do this work within the 6 months, the seller will have the work done and the $8000 will be returned in full. if neither the syndicated or seller finish this work then the buyer will have the right to use the money in trust to complete the work according the rules & regulations stipulated in the “co-owners agreement” wich buyer has a copy . is is also agreed that the seller will remove the carpet in the basement. note: the price adjustment of $15,000 by the seller was made necessary due to the delays caused by the syndicate in the repairs to the basement. the syndicat is responsible for the work to be done in the basement. [2] (Sic – Underscore added) [ 14 ] The deed of transfer of Plaintiff’s unit was executed on March 7, 2011.

Although however Defendants Lam and Chuen Ho had signed the Promise to Purchase with Defendant Ho [3] , they did not intervene to the deed of transfer and only Defendant Ho purchased the property [4] .

[ 15 ] The text of Amendment 22555 was incorporated to the deed of transfer signed on March 7, 2011, via the following clause, contained in said deed: declaration concerning the preliminary contract All terms and conditions that are essentially between the parties hereto in any offer to purchase, counter-offer, or addendum, and especially the amendments AM 22555 thereto prior to this deed shall continue to apply and be binding on the parties to the extent that they do not conflict with any clause or condition of this deed. [5] [ 16 ] During the meeting for the signing of the deed of transfer, Plaintiff signed the statement of disbursements Notary Do had prepared detailing the amount that she should pay him, statement which mentioned the balance of sale price to be withheld [6] . [ 17 ] After Plaintiff signed said statement, the notary added a handwritten note to it, that reads as follows: the vendor has confirmed that after the expiration of delay of 6 months and if the work is not completed by syndicated or himself according to AM 22555, Notary shall remit the 8000$ directly to the purchaser without any notice. [7] [ 18 ] The parties have not signed that note.

Notary Do confirmed that she did not show the note to the parties and did not ask Plaintiff to approve its content. [ 19 ] At the time she wrote it, Notary Do was aware that the wording of the amendment AM 22555 to the promise to purchase incorporated to the deed of transfer was not the same as the handwritten note she wrote on the statement of disbursements on the day the parties signed the deed of transfer. [ 20 ] She explained that wanting to clarify her mandate, she made that handwritten note to herself because she found the Amendment clause to the promise to purchase to be unclear as to when, to whom and at what condition she could pay the balance of sale price she held in trust. [ 21 ] She alleged having discussed with the parties the modification to the Amendment clause and making herself a note of what she claimed the parties agreed upon, that is that the money should be paid to Defendant Ho after the passing of the six months delay, without any further notice. [ 22 ] Plaintiff denied that the parties renegotiated the conditions regarding the payment of the balance of sale price on March 7, 2011, and vehemently denied having agreed to the conditions set forth in Notary Do’s note to herself on the statement of disbursements. [ 23 ] It is important to point out that Defendant Ho did not participate to the negotiations of the conditions regarding the purchase of Plaintiff’s property.

The negotiations took place between his parents, Defendants Lam and Chuen Ho, Plaintiff and Adrien Gareau, a real estate agent that acted as a friend of Plaintiff and assisted him in the writing of the Amendment clause. [ 24 ] Plaintiff and Defendant Ho spoke and met for the first and only time at the office of Notary Do, on the day they executed the deed of transfer of Plaintiff’s property. [ 25 ] After he sold the R-01 unit to Defendant Ho, Plaintiff claims that he was unable to obtain any information from the Syndicate concerning the status of the repairs to the foundation and the basement walls. [ 26 ] Defendant Ho testified that he never called to inform Plaintiff that the repairs were not being done nor requested that he see to it that they be done. [ 27 ] The evidence revealed that Plaintiff still owned two other units in the building after he sold unit R-01 to Defendant Ho.

He knew that the foundation wall had not been repaired within the six months delay the parties had agreed upon, but claims the Syndicate would not give him any information on the matter. [ 28 ] He did not contact Defendant Ho to enquire about the situation. [ 29 ] After the six months delay the Syndicate had to repair the foundation wall and rebuild the basement walls, Defendant Ho called Notary Do asking that she pay him the $8,000 she held in trust. [ 30 ] Further to receiving Defendant Ho’s request, Notary Do called the Syndicate to verify if the foundation wall had been repaired.

When she was confirmed that the repairs had not been done, she paid the $8,000 to Defendant Ho. [ 31 ] Notary Do testified that she paid the $8,000 to Defendant Ho for him to do the work that needed to be done in the basement of the unit he purchased from Plaintiff, that is, rebuilt the walls that had been dismantled by the Syndicate’s engineer in order to investigate the source of the leakage. [ 32 ] The evidence was silent as to when, but Plaintiff was, at one point, made aware that Notary Do paid the balance of sale price to Defendant Ho.

He sent three formal notices to Defendant Ho, carbon copy to Notary Do, dated June 27, 2012, January 22, 2013 and May 14, 2013, requesting payment of the balance of sale price, all letters reading as follows: (…) an action has been taken by the said Mr. Sabiq, Costbusters Inc., against the Syndicat L. O. Grothe for damages that our client has sustained as a result of the Syndicat’s failure, refusal and neglect to effect the appropriate repairs and/or maintenance to the said premises.

The said action has been contested by the said Syndicat, who among other allegations had indicated in their defence to the action that nobody ever complained to the Syndicat of the alleged problem. If this in fact is so, notwithstanding the fact that you indicated to Mr. Sabiq that you complained to the Syndicat to effect the appropriate repairs, if the said complaints were never made, then the amount of $8,000.00, that is being held and/or being retained by you, must be forthcoming and paid onto Mr. Sabiq without any further notice and/or delay. (…)

(Sic) [8] [ 33 ] Plaintiff explained that he instituted the present legal proceedings to avoid prescription of his claim to obtain payment of the balance of sale price. [ 34 ] Defendant Ho testified that he has been renting the unit he purchased from Plaintiff since May of 2011.

He does not intend to have the dry wall put back before the current tenant vacates the premises, so not before at least another three years. [ 35 ] He considers that he can have the walls rebuilt when he feels like it because the amendment clause does not impose a time limit within which he must proceed with the repairs. [ 36 ] Defendant Ho testified that although the foundation wall was repaired in the spring of 2013, a new leakage has recently been found, that will not be repaired before the spring of 2016.

Consequently, in addition to the fact that he does not intend to have the basement walls rebuilt, he considers that it would not be timely to rebuild the dry walls before the new leakage is repaired. [ 37 ] After the signing of the deed of transfer, Defendant Ho did not communicate with the Syndicate or Plaintiff to confirm when the foundation wall would be repaired.

As he put it: “It was a waiting game”. [ 38 ] Although the minutes of the annual general meeting of the co-owners dated March 23, 2011, mentions that the water leakage in the unit 2012, propagating to unit 2010 and to basement 3, needed to be repaired quickly [9] , Defendant Ho did not enquire about the timetable and did not push to have the work done. [ 39 ] After Plaintiff instituted his lawsuit, on February 7, 2014, at the request of Notary Do, Defendant Ho paid back the amount of the balance of sale price to her, money that she still holds in trust [10] . [ 40 ] Plaintiff and Defendant Ho each claim that the money should be paid to them.

ANALYSIS

a) What are the conditions the parties agreed upon regarding the payment of the balance of sale price? [ 41 ] The first sentence of amendment AM 22555 seems to provide a clear timeframe within which the balance of sale price should be withheld and thus paid to either Plaintiff or Defendant Ho. [ 42 ] Yet the parties do not agree as to whom, when and what amount should be paid to either of them, the ambiguity stemming from the rest of the clause. [ 43 ] As a matter of fact, Notary Do herself thought, on March 7, 2011, that the clause needed some clarifications so she would know for sure when, to whom and what amount to pay to either Plaintiff and/or Defendant Ho. [ 44 ] Several provisions are provided in the Civil Code of Quebec (thereafter « C.C.Q. ») regarding the

interpretation of contracts. They read as follows: 1425. The common intention of the parties rather than adherence to the literal meaning of the words shall be sought in interpreting a contract. 1426. In interpreting a contract, the nature of the contract, the circumstances in which it was formed, the

interpretation which has already been given to it by the parties or which it may have received, and usage, are all taken into account. 1427. Each clause of a contract is interpreted in light of the others so that each is given the meaning derived from the contract as a whole. 1428.

A clause is given a meaning that gives it some effect rather than one that gives it no effect. [ 45 ] It is for the Court to determine whether a contract is clear or ambiguous [11] . [ 46 ] To determine what the parties intended, the Court must look for the common intention of the contracting parties taking into consideration the circumstances that lead them to negotiate and agree on the wording of the Amendment [12] . [ 47 ] Without providing any explanation as to how he reached that conclusion, Plaintiff claims that the balance of sale price should be paid to him, even though he has not taken any steps to have the walls of the basement rebuilt and does not have any intention of having the work done. [ 48 ] As to Defendant Ho, he takes the position that since the basement walls were not rebuilt within the six months period after the property of Plaintiff’s unit was transferred to him, he is entitled to the full amount of $8,000 even though he does not intend to have the walls rebuilt in a near future. [ 49 ] What did the parties intend by amendment AM 22555? [ 50 ] When Defendants Ho, Lam and Chuen Ho promised to purchase Plaintiff’s commercial unit, they intended to buy it free of the defect that had been revealed by the buyer’s inspector that is with a sealed foundation wall and drywalls in the basement of the unit. [ 51 ] All parties being aware that the repair of the foundation wall was of the responsibility of the Syndicate, to compensate the Defendants for the delay and the inconvenience they would have to suffer for the repairs to be done, they all agreed to reduce the sale price by $15,000.

[ 52 ] The parties also understood that the basement drywalls could not be rebuilt before the repair of the foundation wall.

Since they could not control the timeframe within which the foundation wall would be repaired by the Syndicate and thus could not determine with certainty when the drywalls could be rebuilt, they made a provision of $8,000 to cover the cost of having the walls rebuilt in order to ensure that if the Syndicate would not have it done, the money to do so would be available for either Plaintiff or Defendant Ho to have the drywalls rebuilt. [ 53 ] It is not clear that the parties intended that the balance of sale price be paid within six months of the sale. [ 54 ] Indeed, although the first sentence of the Amendment mentions that the $8,000 would be held in trust for six months, the rest of the clause provides that (1) the Syndicate has six months to do the work and that (2) after that delay, Plaintiff could have the work done, i.e. have the basement drywalls rebuilt. [ 55 ] Clearly, the balance of sale price could not be paid after the expiry of the six months delay the parties had allowed for the Syndicate to do the work, because after that six months delay the parties awarded Plaintiff the opportunity to have the work done.

Obviously, at the point, Plaintiff needed an undetermined reasonable amount of time to ask a contractor or workers for quotations, hire a team to do the work and allow it some delay to be available to do it. [ 56 ] Defendant Ho could not rightfully claim the balance of sale price without first having informed Plaintiff that the Syndicate had not seen to it that the basement walls be rebuilt and having given Plaintiff reasonable time to make up for what the parties had identified has being the Syndicate’s obligation. [ 57 ]

Article 1375 of the C.C.Q. provides that the parties shall conduct themselves in good faith both at the time the obligation arises and at the time it is performed or extinguished. [ 58 ] In the spirit of this provision, Plaintiff should have been proactive and enquire about the status of the repairs to both the foundations of the building and the reconstruction of the basement walls of the unit he sold to Defendant Ho. He should have taken the necessary steps to get the walls rebuilt, if it was possible and put Defendant Ho in notice of letting him have the work done.

He failed to comply with his undertaking. [ 59 ] Likewise, at the expiry of the six months delay, prior to taking the position that the balance of sale price should be paid to him, Defendant Ho should have notified Plaintiff that the Syndicate had not repaired the foundation wall and demand that he take the necessary steps to have the basement walls rebuilt, giving him a reasonable amount of time to execute himself. [ 60 ] Defendant Ho did not notify Plaintiff of what he expected for two reasons: (1) he interpreted the clause to mean that Plaintiff should have acted within the same six months time frame as the Syndicate, failing which he could cash the full amount of the balance of sale price irrespective of both the fact that he did not intend to have the walls rebuilt and the real cost of the work;

(2) Notary Do paid him the full amount of the balance of sale price without requiring that he demonstrate neither that he intended to have the basement walls rebuilt, nor the cost of the reconstruction. [ 61 ] Just like Plaintiff’s position is not defendable, Defendant Ho’s

interpretation of the Amendment clause is not compatible with the parties’ intention or the wording of the Amendment. [ 62 ] It appears from the wording of the Amendment that the parties had estimated that the cost of rebuilding the basement drywalls would not exceed $8,000.

The money was held in trust to ascertain that either Plaintiff would have the walls rebuilt or, failing that, that the money would be available for Defendant Ho to have the work done. [ 63 ] In the context where Defendant Ho agrees that the basement walls could not and should not have been rebuilt until the water leak had been repaired by the Syndicate of the building, which did not happen before the spring of 2013, it is not clear from the Amendment clause what the parties intended in the event that the basement walls could not be rebuilt because the Syndicate would not have the foundation walls fixed, as it was the case. [ 64 ] Furthermore, Defendant Ho admitted in his plea that the money held in trust by Notary Do should have been used to have the walls rebuilt, the difference between the cost of the work and the amount held in trust to be paid to Plaintiff.

Paragraph 26 of Defendant Ho’s plea reads as follows: The Defendants have an estimate from a licensed contractor for the cost of the dry wall and is willing to deduct the cost from the $8000.00 and remit the difference back to the Plaintiff (…) [ 65 ] In December of 2013, Defendant Ho obtained a quotation of $3,750 plus applicable taxes, for a total of $4,311.56 [13] , for the rebuilding of a 20 feet long by 8 feet high drywall.

That quotation was filed with his plea in February of 2014. [ 66 ] At the hearing, Plaintiff contested Defendant Ho’s quotation relating to the cost of the rebuilding of the basement’s drywalls, and claimed that he should have been given the opportunity to get his own quotation. [ 67 ] Plaintiff had, in fact, ample time to obtain such quotation and did not make any attempt to obtain one because he has always taken the position that he was in no way responsible to have the work done and that the balance of sale price was for him to cash. [ 68 ] As for Defendant Ho, he claimed at trial that his quotation is wrong and the amount quoted should be multiplied by two as the quotation related to the cost of rebuilding one wall only when there are two walls to rebuild. [ 69 ] Defendant Ho admitted that he realised his mistake a few months before trial and chose not to obtain a different quotation. [ 70 ] In that context, his sole affirmation aiming at contradicting his exhibit is insufficient to modify the quotation without the testimony of the person that prepared it.

Therefore and the Court will use the quotation as is.

b) Who should the balance of sale price be paid to? [ 71 ] Five years after they have negotiated the Amendment to the promise to purchase regarding the balance of sale price, neither party has had the basement walls rebuilt and neither party intends to have them rebuilt in the near future, Plaintiff having simply washed his hands of his undertaking and Defendant Ho being under the impression that he can do what he wants when he wants. [ 72 ] Plaintiff testified that the Syndicate would not provide him with details of the timeframe within which the foundations would be repaired and why the work was delayed. [ 73 ] However, he still owned units in the building, and he failed to establish why he could not get information about the repairs to the foundation.

He did not even try to justify not contacting Defendant Ho to find out what was happening with the repairs. [ 74 ] Plaintiff could not claim payment of the balance of sale price before he offered to have the walls put back up, which he never did. [ 75 ] As for Defendant Ho, he would not have accepted that the drywalls be put up before the water leak was fixed, did not notify neither the Syndicate nor Plaintiff in the spring of 2013 to have the work done, the reason for that being that, at that point, Notary Do had already paid him the $8,000 she held in trust and he had decided that he would use it as he pleased. [ 76 ] As previously mentioned, the only right Defendant Ho had to claim the money, according to the terms of the deed of transfer, was to use it to have the work completed. [ 77 ] Notwithstanding the parties’ respective position as to what they interpret their rights and obligations to be, it is in the interest of justice, considering the small amount at stake, that the Court interprets the Amendment in such a way as to resolve the parties respective claims so they would not have to come back to court when it will be possible to have the basement walls rebuilt to determine how much money should be paid to whom. [ 78 ] Although it was not the case in November of 2011, in February of 2014, Plaintiff was officially demanded by Defendant Ho’s plea to perform his obligation to rebuild the basement walls.

He never complied with his obligation and reiterated at the hearing of the case that he would not comply with it. [ 79 ]

Article 1596 of the C.C.Q provides the following: 1596 . Where a creditor files a judicial application against the debtor without his otherwise being in default, the debtor is entitled to perform the obligation within a reasonable time after the demand.

If the obligation is performed within a reasonable time, the costs of the demand are borne by the creditor. [ 80 ] Since Plaintiff has failed and still refuses to execute his obligation, he cannot be entitled to the balance of sale price up to the amount it will cost to have the basement walls rebuilt, as provided by the Amendment clause and as Defendant Ho so admitted in paragraph 22 of his Plea by stating: The terms of the Promise to Purchase state that the Defendant will have the right to use the $8000.00 from the Trust account for completion of the repairs (…) [ 81 ] Out of the amount held in trust by Notary Do, Defendant Ho is entitled to receive $4,311.56, the amount the evidence has established is necessary for him to have the walls rebuilt.

Plaintiff should receive the balance of that amount, $3,688.44.

c) Should the claim against Notary Do be maintained? [ 82 ] The notary, as a professional counselor, has the obligation to fulfill his or her mandate with prudence and diligence. [ 83 ]

Section 2138 of the C.C.Q. provides the following: 2138. A mandatary is bound to fulfill the mandate he has accepted, and he shall act with prudence and diligence in performing it.

He shall also act honestly and faithfully in the best interests of the mandator, and shall avoid placing himself in a position where his personal interest is in conflict with that of his mandator. [ 84 ] The Court of Appeal has decided that a notary cannot allow irregularities or contradictions to be left in a document that she executes, which could affect the effectiveness of the act or engender ambiguity in its execution, ambiguity that she his mandated to clarify for the benefit of the parties that will intervene to the act [14] . [ 85 ] The mandate to receive money in trust entails the obligation to pay the money to its rightful owner [15] .

Justice Crête wrote the following on the matter: Le devoir fiduciaire n'est pas celui d'une boîte postale: la défenderesse est en effet fiduciaire d'une somme de 10 000 $ déposée par un promettant acheteur en garantie du respect des autres obligations qu'il a contractées dans l'offre d'achat. Par ailleurs, à l'égard du demandeur, le devoir du fiduciaire n'est rempli que lorsqu'il est satisfait que les conditions contenues à l'offre d'achat sont remplies ou exécutées.

Si les promoteurs ont choisi un notaire pour recevoir le dépôt, c'est de toute évidence pour rassurer les clients acheteurs et leur donner la confiance qu'offre un notaire, un professionnel du droit, une personne impartiale, objective et indépendante. [16] [ 86 ] When preparing an authentic act, such as a deed of sale, a notary must make sure that the statements attributed to the parties are faithfully reproduced [17] . [ 87 ] In the present instance, Notary Do did not write the Amendment clause and the evidence has confirmed that the parties to the promise to purchase both agreed with the content of the clause that was imported to the deed of transfer.

[ 88 ] For the reason set forth above, Notary Do was right when she concluded that the clause as drafted did not give her clear instructions as to when, to whom, how much and at what conditions she should pay the balance of sale price. [ 89 ] It is probable, as she suggested, that Notary Do raised the issue of the ambiguity of the Amendment clause with the parties when they were at her office to sign the deed of transfer of Plaintiff’s property on March 7, 2011. [ 90 ] The parties however have not signed a document to confirm the terms of the modification of the Amendment clause relating to the balance of sale price and the evidence is contradictory as to whether they agreed to change the terms they had negotiated and had incorporated to the deed of transfer, to be consistent with the personal note Notary Do made to herself on the Statement of disbursement. [ 91 ] Notwithstanding the foregoing and although, for the reasons stated above, Notary Do should not have paid the balance of sale price to Defendant Ho in November 2011, since she obtained from him that he repay the money in trust, in light of the Court’s conclusion that part of the balance of sale price should be paid to Defendant Ho, Plaintiff’s request that she be condemned solidarily with Defendant Ho to pay him the balance of sale price is unfounded and rejected.

d) Is the lawsuit against Defendants Lam and Chuen Ho well founded? [ 92 ] Although party to the promise to purchase, Defendants Lam and Chuen Ho did not take part to the deed of transfer of Plaintiff’s property. The deed of transfer mentions that the offers to purchase, the counter-offer, or the addendum, apply to the parties to the deed, i.e.

Plaintiff and Defendant Ho only. [ 93 ] The claim against Defendants Lam and Chuen Ho is therefore dismissed. [ 94 ] Except for Defendant Lam and Chuen Ho, the other parties to the proceedings all either did not act in good faith or, in this case of Defendant Do in the best interest of her clients, in the execution of their respective obligations.

Plaintiff’s and Defendant Ho’s position at trial were also unreasonable in light of the facts of the case, rendering necessary the institution of the proceedings. [ 95 ] For those reasons their will be no costs awarded. [ 96 ] WHEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 97 ] GRANTS Plaintiff’s claim in part, for the amount of $3,688.44 ; [ 98 ] GRANTS Defendant Chun Fung Ho’s plea in part for the amount of $4,311.56; [ 99 ] INSTRUCTS Defendant Me Sylvie Do to pay $3,688.44 to Plaintiff and $4,311.56 to Defendant Chun Fung Ho; [ 100 ] GRANTS the plea of the Defendants Sau Chu Lam, Kam Chuen Ho and Me Sylvie Do; [ 101 ] DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants Sau Chu Lam, Kam Chuen Ho and Me Sylvie Do; [ 102 ] WITHOUT the legal costs. __________________________________ MAGALI LEWIS, J.C.Q.

Me Lawrence Glazer Green Glazer Nadler & associés Attorney for Plaintiff Mr. Ho Chun Fung Self represented Mr. Lam Sau Chu Self represented Mr. Ho Kam Chuen Self represented Me Stéphanie Beauchamp Donati Maisonneuve Lawyers Attorney for Me Sylvie Do Date of hearing: November 11, 2015 Une

partie peut obtenir la traduction française du présent jugement en adressant une demande écrite à la Directrice du secteur civil du Palais de justice de Montréal.