2019 QCCQ 7430, 2019 QCCQ 7430

Phelan c. Rajakumar 2019 QCCQ 7430 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF montreal Civil Division No: 500-32-158526-188 DATE: November 11, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONORABLE CAtherine Pilon, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SCOTT PHELAN -and- PAULA KELLY Plaintiffs v.

SANJAY RAJAKUMAR Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT RENDERED ON THE BENCH ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiffs claim $14,815.24 from their ex son-in-law, the Defendant. This amount corresponds to half the price of the wedding reception which they agreed to pay for their daughter, Ms. Phelan, and the Defendant. [ 2 ] The Plaintiffs blame the Defendant for having gotten married to their daughter while he was entertaining an extra-conjugal relationship with another woman.

The marriage ended a few months after the wedding and they blame the Defendant entirely for this breakup. Context [ 3 ] The evidence is as follows. [ 4 ] The Plaintiffs willingly agreed to pay the wedding for Ms. Phelan and the Defendant, who could not afford it themselves to the extent they had planned. [ 5 ] A few months before the wedding, Ms. Phelan began questioning a relationship that the Defendant was entertaining with a co- worker.

This relationship was essentially friendly at that point, with the exception of two events of psychical but non-sexual contact. [ 6 ] The Defendant nevertheless wanted to marry Ms. Phelan and hoped to make their marriage work. Ms. Phelan did not convey to the Plaintiffs that she was having suspicions about her future husband. [ 7 ] The Defendant pursued his relationship with his co-worker which led to the breakup with Ms. Phelan a few months after the wedding, and eventually to a divorce. Analysis [ 8 ] The Court has to determine whether the Defendant committed a fault pursuant to

article 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec ( C.C.Q. ) in accepting that the Plaintiffs pay for the wedding while he was having a relationship with an another woman. [ 9 ] According to case law, the concept of civil fault is evaluated pursuant to the standard of care of a prudent and diligent person to foresee and avoid events which can lead to a prejudice. It is not a criterion on of perfection and infallibility.

In addition, an error in behavior does not necessarily amount to a fault. [ 10 ] The Court must thus examine the Defendant’s actions or omissions in light of these principles, and in the particular context of a romantic relationship. [ 11 ] It appears that the Defendant, although he may have been involved in a budding extra-conjugal relationship, truly felt that he could succeed in his marriage with Ms. Phelan. With hindsight, this wish did not materialize, but the Defendant did not have the obligation to

discuss his feelings with the Plaintiffs, nor did he commit a fault by hoping that the marriage would work notwithstanding his relationship with his co-worker. [ 12 ] It is also noteworthy that Ms. Phelan herself had her suspicions about the Defendant, but that she did not feel the need to discuss them with her parents before the wedding. [ 13 ] The Defendant and Ms. Phelan entered willingly into their wedding and The Plaintiffs willingly agreed to pay for this event. [ 14 ] The Plaintiffs further blame the Defendant for the failure of the marriage when his relationship with his co-worker evolved.

Although they are understandably frustrated and upset for their daughter, the fact that they paid for the wedding was not a guaranty that the marriage would work and not end in a divorce at one point or and another. [ 15 ] The Plaintiffs may feel that the Defendant did not act appropriately and respectfully to their daughter, but that does not constitute a civil fault which can make him liable to them for the cost of the wedding and other prejudice. [ 16 ] The Defendant raised that the cost of the wedding was a gift and that the Plaintiffs are therefore trying to revocate a donation for ingratitude pursuant to

article 1836 C.C.Q. He argues that this claim was prescribed within a year according to

article 1837 C.C.Q. Given that the Court concludes in the absence of a fault committed by the Defendant, it does not need to address this issue. [ 17 ] The Plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed, but in the particular circumstances of this case, costs will not be awarded in favor of the Defendant. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Plaintiffs’ Application against the Defendant; THE WHOLE without Court costs. __________________________________ CATHERINE PILON, j.c.q. Date of hearing: November 11, 2019