2021 QCCQ 4670, 2021 QCCQ 4670

Theodorakopoulos c. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company 2021 QCCQ 4670 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-153010-162 DATE: June 7, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY JUDGE HENRI RICHARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ PARASKEVI THEODORAKOPOULOS Plaintiff v.

THE WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On May 8, 2010, the plaintiff had water damage inside her property, which she reported to her insurance company, The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company ( Wawanesa ), on June 16, 2010. [ 2 ] Wawanesa retains the services of an evaluation firm to determine and evaluate the damages.

As a result of these assessments, Wawanesa pays the plaintiff various amounts between July 2012 and March 2013. [ 3 ] Despite these payments, discussions continue between the plaintiff, still acting through her mandatary, Ms.

Pota Theodorakopoulos, and Wawanesa, in relation to the cost of replacing the carpet and a furniture unit of the basement. [ 4 ] In her original claim, the plaintiff is claiming the following amounts from Wawanesa : Basement carpet replacement $3,219.30 Replacement of the basement furniture $2,874.38 Overpaid premiums $1,889.47 TOTAL $7,983.15 [ 5 ] In an amended application, the plaintiff is claiming from Wawanesa $21,918.08, which she agrees to reduce to $15,000 in order to confer jurisdiction on the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec. [ 6 ] The amounts claimed by the plaintiff in her amended application are for damages to complete, redo or repair electrical work, the stairwell, the windows, the heating units, the floor covering, the plumbing, the carpet on the first floor and the plastering of the foundations. [ 7 ] Wawanesa, acting through Ms.

Lucie Plourde, a claims adjuster, objects to these amendments because they are not related to the incident, they arise from the work performed by the contractors chosen by the plaintiff and these new claims have already been the subject of a counterclaim which was rejected in another file. [ 8 ] In addition, as to the claim for the replacement of the carpet and a piece of furniture in the basement, Wawanesa argues that it has previously indemnified the plaintiff in this regard.

In the alternative, if any of its representatives have acknowledged that they owe money for these items, the plaintiff has not satisfied any of the conditions for payment in respect of these claims. [ 9 ] For overpaid premiums, Wawanesa argues that the plaintiff's claim is not justified at all. [ 10 ] Furthermore, the plaintiff maintains that she is the victim of an abuse of process on behalf of Wawanesa, so that she is claiming $10,000, which Wawanesa vehemently denies. [ 11 ] The only issues to be determined by the Court are whether the plaintiff establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, the merits of her various claims and whether Wawanesa abuses the procedure.

CONTEXT AND ANALYSIS

[ 12 ] In civil matters, the burden of proof is on Plaintiff’s shoulders in accordance with the principle provided in

article 2803 of the Civil Code of Québec ( C.C.Q. ), which states that “A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based.” [ 13 ] The Court decides on the balance of probabilities, pursuant to

article 2804 C.C.Q., which states that “Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence.” In other words, the Court must determine what is more probable and plausible, rather than improbable and implausible. Replacement of the carpet and a piece of furniture in the basement [ 14 ] In support of her application, the plaintiff relies on the following email from Mr. Eric Perron, Wawanesa's adjuster, on November 29, 2013 (P-40): Bonjour, Pour le tapis, selon mes documents le montant accordé pour le tapis était bien de 2800$ plus taxes.

Pour le meuble / cabinet, c’est un montant de 2000$ plus taxes. Tel que convenu lors de notre dernier entretien téléphonique, ces deux montants seront payables à votre nom uniquement sur présentation de factures . Ce sont les deux derniers montants payables dans votre dossier. Meilleures salutations. [underlining by the Court] [ 15 ] On the same day, the plaintiff's mandatary replied to Mr. Perron in these terms (P—40) : Bonjour Eric Je constate les meme montants.

En plus les tables etait pour $1,494.68 et les meubles / entreposage étaient $3000…qu’on a discute j’utiliserai pour les meubles.( ca c’est le montant le contrateur essaye d’avoir pour lui en cours) Je confirme que je t’envolerai les factures pour ton dossier ….dici quelque semaines (commande – manufacturier est complète pour les tables) Si jamais le tapis est un peu plus cher est l’unité un peu moins, je resterai a l’interieure des deux montants au complète. ok?

Kind regards, [exact reproduction] [ 16 ] The plaintiff argues that the insurance policy between her and Wawanesa allows for payment of the replacement cost of damaged property (valeur à neuf). Wawanesa does not contest this situation, but adds that in order to benefit from the replacement cost of a property, it has to be replaced.

In this regard, Wawanesa refers the Court to the terms of the insurance policy (D-1), under the heading of “Modalités de règlement des biens meubles” : Dans le cas des dommages aux biens meubles, nous vous indemniserons, à concurrence du montant de garantie, selon l'une des deux possibilités ci-dessous, à savoir : 1. La valeur au jour du sinistre; la valeur au jour du sinistre s'établit en fonction du coût du remplacement sous déduction de la dépréciation, celle-ci étant notamment déterminée selon l'état des biens, leur valeur de revente et leur durée normale. 2.

La valeur à neuf (SI MENTION EN EST FAITE AUX CONDITIONS PARTICULIÈRES), c'est-à-dire le coût, au jour du sinistre, du remplacement ou, s'il est moins élevé, celui de la réparation à l'aide de biens neufs de même nature et qualité, sans déduction pour la dépréciation. Cette garantie s'exerce aux conditions suivantes : a. Les biens sinistrés doivent avoir été en état de répondre à leur destination première, lors du sinistre; b. Les biens sinistrés doivent être réparés ou remplacés par vous dans des délais raisonnables après le sinistre .

LA VALEUR À NEUF NE S'APPLIQUE PAS : - aux objets qui, de par leur nature même, ne peuvent être remplacés par un objet neuf, notamment les antiquités, objets d’art, peintures et sculptures; - aux objets dont l’âge ou l'histoire contribue à leur valeur, notamment les souvenirs et objets de collection ; - aux biens qui n’ont pas été maintenus en état de fonctionner. Si vous n'avez pas droit à la valeur à neuf, le règlement se limitera à la valeur au jour du sinistre.

[underlining by the Court] [ 17 ] The evidence shows that the plaintiff never sent Mr. Perron, or any other representative of Wawanesa, any invoice related to the replacement of the basement carpet. A quote is not sufficient.. [ 18 ] This statement of fact is confirmed in the plaintiff's documents related to her application for abuse of process, in which she states that Wawanesa was in possession of a quote for the replacement of the basement carpet, without more. Also, in her e-mail on November 29, 2013, the plaintiff's mandatary committed to forward to Mr.

Perron « les factures pour ton dossier ». [ 19 ] Regarding the basement furniture, the plaintiff produced an invoice from Sears (P-12) which is not in any way detailed and does not mention the replacement of the furniture in question. Moreover, this invoice dates from November 2016, whereas the incident occurred in May 2010. It is therefore obvious that this invoice cannot be accepted since it violates the terms of the policy which provide that : « Les biens sinistrés doivent être réparés ou remplacés par vous dans des délais raisonnables après le sinistre ».

Obviously, this is not the case. [ 20 ] That being so, the Court concludes that the plaintiff has not discharged her burden of establishing, by a preponderance of proof, the merits of her claim with respect to the replacement of the carpet and a piece of furniture in the basement. [ 21 ] Furthermore, Wawanesa alleges and argues that the plaintiff is properly indemnified for the replacement of the carpet and the basement furniture.

In support of its position in this regard, Wawanesa refers to the appraisal report of August 9, 2010 of Évaluations Renaud Héaulme (D-3) and the one of October 27, 2010 (D-4) which specifically mention the cost of replacing the carpet and the furniture in the basement. [ 22 ] Thus, in all probability and likelihood, Wawanesa has already indemnified the plaintiff for the cost of replacing the carpet and the furniture in the basement.

Overpaid premiums [ 23 ] In imprecise and difficult to understand allegations, the plaintiff claims that Wawanesa overcharges her for insurance premiums. [ 24 ] Despite its best efforts and after examining the numerous documents produced by the plaintiff, the Court still does not understand this ground of claim. [ 25 ] On page 6 of her

Schedule P-61(2), the plaintiff lists the costs of the various insurance policies with Wawanesa in force between 2007 and 2022. She points out the increase in the annual cost of insurance premiums. [ 26 ] Wawanesa explains that the insurance business is highly competitive and that if the plaintiff is not satisfied with the prices offered, she can go to another insurer. [ 27 ] In any event, as a matter of law, the Tribunal finds no justification for a head of claim of $1,889.47 entitled “Overpaid premiums”.

Amended application [ 28 ] As indicated, the plaintiff amends her application to add various claims arising from the work of her contractors. [ 29 ] Wawanesa is right to contest these amendments on the following grounds. [ 30 ] First, as the plaintiff's mandatary acknowledges, the amended heads of claim have already been the subject of a counterclaim in file 500-32-137117-133 involving her contractor, Rénovation Y.L. et Fils.

By a judgment of March 10, 2021 in the above-mentioned case, the Court dismissed the counterclaim. [ 31 ] Notwithstanding this judgment, Wawanesa is well founded in arguing that the various heads of claim in the Amended Application relate to damages arising from the work of the contractors chosen by the plaintiff. [ 32 ] These are not therefore claims covered by the insurance policy binding the parties, since a loss refers to sudden and accidental damage, which is not the case for the deficiencies or damage caused by the plaintiff's contractors. [ 33 ] Consequently, since the plaintiff does not discharge her burden of proof that her various heads of claim are covered by the insurance policy, the Court rejects them.

Abuse of procedure [ 34 ] In her document, in order to justify her application for abuse of procedure, the plaintiff argues that Wawanesa acted in bad faith, that she refused to accept the claim for the carpet and the furniture in the basement, that her representative acknowledged her debt, that she was in breach of contract and that, as of 2019, the deductible under the insurance policy will be increased to $1,000. [ 35 ] At trial, the plaintiff's mandatary justified the application for abuse of procedure by the fact that Wawanesa's file was initially opened in the name of the plaintiff's husband's estate and that, despite the transmission of quotes, Wawanesa still refused to pay for the replacement of the carpet and a piece of basement furniture. [ 36 ] An allegation of abuse of procedure is serious.

A single allegation is not enough, it must be established. [ 37 ] In the present case, the Court does not find any evidence that Wawanesa is abusing its rights or the procedure in any way.

[ 38 ] On the contrary, Wawanesa exercises its rights with rigour, competence and integrity, through its claims adjuster. [ 39 ] The Court adds that it is rather Wawanesa who is the victim of allegations, heads of claim and an incredible flood of useless e- mails and documents from the plaintiff, acting through her mandatary. [ 40 ] For the present file, the plaintiff produced 129 exhibits even though it is obvious that her original application is ill-founded since she never sent invoices to Wawanesa for the replacement of the carpet and the furniture in the basement. [ 41 ] In the same way, the plaintiff cannot justify her claim for overpaid premiums and her various heads of claim arising from her amended application. [ 42 ] Clearly, through the conduct of her mandatary, the plaintiff does not understand the content and importance of the principle of proportionality set out in the first paragraph of

article 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure : 18. The parties to a proceeding must observe the principle of proportionality and ensure that their actions, their pleadings, including their choice of an oral or a written defence, and the means of proof they use are proportionate, in terms of the cost and time involved, to the nature and complexity of the matter and the purpose of the application . FOR THE REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES the plaintiff's original and amended applications; CONDEMS Paraskevi Theodorakopoulos to pay The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company $250 as legal costs. __________________________________ Henri Richard, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: June 1, 2021