2019 QCCQ 6256, 2019 QCCQ 6256

Pawelek c. Bank of Montreal 2019 QCCQ 6256 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-701615-173 DATE: September 5, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MONIKA PAWELEK Plaintiff v.

BANK OF MONTREAL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Monika Pawelek [1] claims $15,000 in damages from her hypothecary lender, the Bank of Montreal (“ BMO ”), on the grounds that it, the bailiff whom it instructed to carry out a notice of execution, or the mover who assisted the bailiff, committed various faults in the execution of a judgement in forced surrender which the bank obtained against her. [ 2 ] Ms.

Pawelek alleges that the bailiffs and movers who participated in the execution of the eviction notice committed numerous faults in that they slandered and libelled her, damaged her movable property and her residence, and caused her to suffer stress. [ 3 ] She claims damages for loss of reputation, moral damages (stress), damages to repair damaged furniture and personal belongings, and the cost to repair damages caused to the property. [ 4 ] BMO argues that it, the bailiffs to whom it gave instructions to carry out the Notice of Eviction, and the movers who assisted the bailiff committed no faults and performed their duties in accordance with the rules set out in the Québec Code of Civil Procedure (“ C.C.P. ”). [ 5 ] It adds that in any event, the Property and the Plaintiff’s personal belongings were in a dilapidated state when the eviction was carried out, such that the alleged injury she complains of is non-existent or grossly exaggerated. [ 6 ] Finally, BMO adds that notwithstanding that it had the right to dispose of as it saw fit the personal belongings the Plaintiff left on the premises, it did not do so and the Plaintiff was ultimately able to recover her movable property.

Issues [ 7 ] Ms. Pawelek’s claim against BMO raises the following issues:

a) Does the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec have jurisdiction to hear that portion of Ms. Pawelek’s claim which alleges defamation and damages to her reputation?

b) Did BMO itself or one of its subordinates, or the mover who assisted the bailiff, commit a fault?

c) Did the bailiff whom the bank instructed to execute the Notice of Eviction act in bad faith or commit an intentional or gross fault?

d) Can Ms. Pawelek claim compensation for damages caused to the movable property which she left on the premises on the day of the eviction?

e) Is BMO bound to make reparation for injury caused to Ms. Pawelek by the fault of the bailiff or the mover?

f) What injury, if any, was caused to Ms. Pawelek by BMO’s fault? Background Facts [ 8 ] Ms. Pawelek owns a residential property located in Montreal (“ Property ”). She lives alone, with her small dog.

[ 9 ] On or about March 28, 2011, BMO granted to Ms. Pawelek a homeowner line of credit (the “ Line of Credit ”). [2] [ 10 ] The Line of Credit was secured by a hypothec on the Property. [ 11 ] On or about January 17, 2014, BMO granted to Ms. Pawelek a MasterCard credit card (the “ Credit Card ”). [ 12 ] On February 23, 2016, a judgment by default was rendered in favour of BMO condemning Ms. Pawelek to pay $8,824.76 with interest at the rate of 19.90% starting on September 16, 2015, for sums owed under the Credit Card. [3] [ 13 ] On February 4, 2016, BMO served a demand letter on Ms.

Pawelek for arrears owing on her Line of Credit from September 2015. [ 14 ] In November 2014, BMO paid the municipal tax arrears of $6,269.56 owed by Ms. Pawelek on the Property for the years 2013 and 2014, which constituted an additional default under the Line of Credit agreement. [4] [ 15 ] On February 25, 2016, BMO served on Ms. Pawelek a 60 day notice for sale under judicial authority, for the arrears owing on her Line of Credit for the period covering September 2015 to February 2016. [5] [ 16 ] In April 2016, BMO once again paid the municipal tax arrears of $5,965.82 owned by Ms.

Pawelek on the Property for the years 2015 and 2016, as well as the school taxes owing for the year 2015 for an amount of $609. [6] [ 17 ] On May 17, 2016, an originating application in forced surrender and sale under judicial authority and for the reimbursement of sums owed under the Line of Credit was served on Ms. Pawelek in Court of Québec file number 500-22-230383-161 (“ Application for Forced Surrender ”). [7] [ 18 ] Ms. Pawelek refused to allow the bailiff to remit the Application for Forced Surrender to her. [ 19 ] Ms.

Pawelek did not file an Answer to the Application for Forced Surrender and thus it proceeded by default against her. [ 20 ] On August 5, 2016, the Special clerk of the Court of Québec rendered a judgment by default against Ms. Pawelek on the Application for Forced Surrender ordering her to vacate and surrender the Property within 15 days from the service of the judgment and authorized the sale under judicial control by agreement of the Property (the “ Judgment ”). [8] [ 21 ] The Judgment also condemned Ms.

Pawelek to pay to BMO $58,213.88 with interest at the rate of 2.3% from May 10, 2016, in reimbursement of the sums owed under the Line of credit. [ 22 ] On October 8, 2016, the Judgment was served on Ms. Pawelek. Although she was inside the Property when the bailiff tried to serve it, she refused to open the door to allow the bailiff to serve the Judgment on her. [9] [ 23 ] On December 2, 2016, considering that Ms.

Pawelek failed to surrender the Property despite the service of the Judgment, BMO served on her a notice of execution in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure (the “ Notice of Eviction ”). [10] The Notice notably states that she must vacate and surrender the Property and must remove all movable property from the building within 5 days. [ 24 ] By December 7, 2016, Ms. Pawelek did not vacate and surrender the Property.

Nor did she remove any furniture or personal belongings from the Property. [ 25 ] Accordingly, on December 9, 2016, the bailiff, Gaétan Labbé, as per the BMO’s instructions, undertook to evict Ms. Pawelek from the Property. [11] [ 26 ] The eviction process took the better part of the day and was completed by approximately 4:00 PM. [ 27 ] On January 18, 2017, Ms. Pawelek paid BMO the arrears due on the Line of Credit plus other expenses incurred by the bank during the eviction process. [ 28 ] Accordingly, the sale under judicial authority of the Property did not take place and Ms.

Pawelek was able to reintegrate it. [ 29 ] By demand letter dated April 17, 2017, Ms. Pawelek enjoined BMO to pay her $57,180 for damages she allegedly suffered in the execution of the Judgment and the Notice of Eviction. [ 30 ] On May 3, 2017, Ms. Pawelek filed her claim against the BMO before the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division. She has voluntarily reduced the amount claimed from the bank to $15,000. Analysis and Decision [ 31 ] To adjudicate the issues raised by Ms. Pawelek’s claim against BMO, the Court must apply the following legislative provisions: Code of Civil Procedure , R.S.Q., ch. 25.01

CHAPTER IV FORCED EXECUTION DIVISION I

GENERAL RULES 679 . Forced execution is undertaken by the judgment creditor if the debtor does not execute the judgment voluntarily. 680 . A creditor who wishes to force execution of a judgment gives execution instructions to a bailiff. The instructions direct the bailiff to seize the debtor’s property, including the debtor’s income, and to dispose of it so as to satisfy the claim; they may also direct the bailiff to place the seizing creditor in possession of an item of property or to evict the person against whom the judgment has been rendered.

The instructions must contain the information the bailiff needs to execute the judgment. The creditor sends to the bailiff, together with the instructions, the money necessary for the execution of the judgment. 681 . Execution begins by the filing of a notice of execution, in keeping with the model established by the Minister of Justice, with the court office.

On receiving the creditor’s instructions, the bailiff completes the notice of execution by identifying the judgment to be executed, including its date, by writing in the name and contact information of the creditor, the debtor and the bailiff, and the amount of the claim, indicating, if such is the case, that the judgment has been partially executed, and by describing the execution measures to be taken. If the judgment is to be executed against an immovable, the immovable is described in accordance with the rules of the Civil Code , and its address is given.

The notice is served on the debtor and notified to the creditor. … DIVISION II RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PARTICIPANTS IN EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS § 1. — General provisions 683 . On notification of a notice of execution, all participants in the execution proceedings are required, in addition to acting in accordance with the requirements of good faith, to co-operate in the proper execution of the judgment and abstain from doing anything likely to hinder it. 684 .

On being served with the notice of execution, the debtor is required to provide the bailiff with all the information needed to identify the debtor, including their date of birth, and information on their patrimonial situation, including a list of all creditors who could join in the execution proceedings in the course of the year, or who hold a hypothec on or have a right to revendicate the seized property. On the bailiff’s request, the court may order a person, a public officer or a public body to provide the bailiff with any information they have concerning the debtor’s home and work contact information.

The order is enforceable despite any provision to the contrary in a general law or special Act providing for the confidentiality or non- disclosure of certain information or documents, subject to compliance with professional secrecy. § 2. — Bailiffs 685. Bailiffs have a duty of impartiality toward all participants in execution proceedings, as well as a general duty to provide information to them. Bailiffs may perform any act necessary for the exercise of their mission.

Specifically, a bailiff is required to inform the debtor and any garnishees of the content of the notice of execution and of their rights, and, on their request, explain the execution proceedings to them and the rules for computing the seizable portion of income. The bailiff is also required to carry out the creditors’ instructions in the manner that is most advantageous not only for them but for all the parties. The bailiff informs the creditors named in the list provided by the debtor that a notice of execution has been filed and invites them to inform the bailiff of the nature and amount of their claim.

Unless they acted in bad faith or committed an intentional or gross fault, bailiffs cannot be held liable for the exercise of functions that are assigned to them in forced execution matters and relate to an eviction, the removal of property or the seizure of the debtor’s property or of a passenger vehicle or to a sale under judicial authority as the method of realization in execution of a judgment. 686.

If force must be used to enter a place for the purpose of seizing or removing property or evicting a person, the bailiff, before entering, must obtain the authorization of the special clerk of the district where the bailiff must carry out the execution proceedings. This authorization gives the bailiff access to all rooms, buildings and things on the premises. The bailiff, if concerned about possible difficulties, may request the assistance of a peace officer. 687. The bailiff has, with respect to seized property, the powers of an administrator of the property of others charged with simple administration.

All sums seized by the bailiff, paid to the bailiff under an instalment payment agreement or derived from the disposition of property are deposited in a trust account until distribution. … DIVISION V

SPECIAL RULES APPLICABLE TO FORCED EXECUTION IN REAL ACTIONS 692. If the party ordered to deliver or surrender property fails to do so within the time set by the judgment ordering the eviction of the debtor or the removal of property or by a subsequent agreement between the parties, the judgment creditor may be placed in possession of the property by the notice of execution. If it involves eviction, the notice must be served at least five days before it is to be executed.

It orders the debtor to remove all movable property within a specified time limit or pay the costs incurred for its removal and informs the debtor that if the debtor fails to comply, the movable property will be deemed to have been abandoned. No eviction may be carried out on a holiday or during the period extending from 24 December to 2 January. 693.

Any movable property left on the premises on eviction of the debtor is deemed to have been abandoned by the debtor and the bailiff may sell it for the benefit of the creditor, give it away to a charity if it is not likely to be sold or otherwise dispose of it as the bailiff sees fit if it cannot be given away. Civil Code of Québec 1474 . A person may not exclude or limit his liability for material injury caused to another through an intentional or gross fault; a gross fault is a fault which shows gross recklessness, gross carelessness or gross negligence. ,,,, 2160.

A mandator is liable to third persons for the acts performed by the mandatary in the performance and within the limits of his mandate unless, under the agreement or by virtue of usage, the mandatary alone is liable. 2805. Good faith is always presumed, unless the law expressly requires that it be proved.

a) Does the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec have jurisdiction to hear that portion of Ms. Pawelek’s claim which alleges defamation and damages to her reputation? [ 32 ] Ms. Pawelek alleges in her application that the bailiff and movers hired by the BMO to carry out the Notice of Eviction on December 9, 2016, directed slurs at her during the eviction process, within view and earshot of her neighbour and onlookers. [ 33 ] She claims these statements sullied her reputation and humiliated her, and claims $1,000 for loss of reputation. [ 34 ] As the Court pointed out to Ms.

Pawelek during the trial, an application alleging defamation is not a “small claim” and thus cannot be heard by the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec. [12] [ 35 ] An allegation whereby a plaintiff claims a defendant made slurs at her which caused a loss of reputation constitutes an application for defamation. [ 36 ] Accordingly, the Court of Québec, sitting in Small Claims Division, does not have jurisdiction to hear that portion of Ms. Pawelek’s claim which pertains to alleged slurs and insults that were allegedly made against her by the movers and bailiffs.

b) Did the BMO or one of its subordinates, or the mover who assisted the bailiff, commit a fault in carrying out the Notice of Eviction?

c) Did the bailiff whom the bank instructed to execute the Notice of Eviction act in bad faith or commit an intentional or gross fault?

d) Can Ms. Pawelek claim compensation for damages caused to the movable property which she left on the premises on the day of the eviction? [ 37 ] As the three issues raised above call on the Court to analyze common facts, the Court will address them together. [ 38 ] It is trite law that Ms. Pawelek bears the burden of proving that the BMO or its subordinates, or the movers, committed a fault in executing the Notice of Eviction. [ 39 ] In the case of the bailiff, considering the limited immunity that flows from paragraph 3 of

article 685 C.C.P. , her burden is more onerous: she must prove that he acted in bad faith or committed an intentional or gross fault in executing the Notice of Eviction. [ 40 ] In all cases, she must also prove that she suffered injury, and that the fault(

s) caused the injury she complains of. [13] [ 41 ] The issue of whether or not a fault or faults or an intentional or gross fault were committed by the persons who participated in the eviction process in this case must be considered keeping in mind the nature of a notice of eviction and the role and obligations of the various participants in the execution proceedings. [ 42 ] In the present case, the participants involved in the execution of the Judgment and the Notice of Eviction include the BMO (the creditor), the bailiff instructed by the bank, and the movers whom the bailiff hired to assist it. [ 43 ] As Justice François Godbout writes in Bouchard v.

Québec (Ville de) [14] , a notice of eviction is an order from a court which a creditor must resort to when the judgment debtor refuses to voluntarily surrender the property as he/she was ordered to do in a judgment:

[45] Il est opportun d'abord de rappeler ce que signifie l'émission d'un bref d'expulsion et de mise en possession et par la suite, d'en situer l'exécution dans le contexte particulier de la présente instance. [46] Un bref d'expulsion et de mise en possession est un ordre de la Cour qui résulte d'un jugement qui ne fut pas exécuté dans un délai imparti par la

partie qui avait été condamnée à délaisser un bien, meuble ou immeuble selon le cas. Puisqu'il s'agit d'une expulsion forcée, les biens se trouvant encore sur les lieux au moment de l'exécution doivent être retirés du logement et placés sur le carreau. [ 44 ] A creditor who is faced with a non-complying debtor and who must resort to forced execution cannot perform this task himself.

He must give instructions to a bailiff to carry out the forced execution, as a bailiff is the only person empowered to do so. [15] [ 45 ] The bailiff may himself contract with other persons, such as computer technicians, movers and locksmiths, whose assistance may be necessary for the exercise of his mission. [16] [ 46 ] As stated in

article 683 C.C.P. , all participants in the execution proceedings, including, in this case the bank, the bailiff and the movers, must act in accordance with the requirement of good faith. This rule is simply an extension of the requirement already codified in

article 1375 C.C.Q. [17] Moreover, the

article further adds that they must all co-operate in the proper execution of the judgment and abstain from doing anything likely to hinder it. [ 47 ] Upon receiving the creditor’s instructions, the bailiff completes a notice of execution and files it with the court office. [18] [ 48 ] With these rules in mind, the court will address below the liability, if any, of the three participants in the execution proceedings which have given rise to Ms. Pawelek’s claim. The liability of the bailiff, the BMO or the movers [ 49 ] When executing a notice of execution, a bailiff acts as an officer of the court.

As justice Jean-François writes in Kaba v. Paradis, Brayley et Associés : Tout en reconnaissant que les huissiers de justice ne sont pas des agents de l'Administration au sens strict, le Tribunal est dès lors d'avis que lorsqu'ils procèdent à la vente de biens sous autorité de justice en vertu d'un bref de saisie au nom du Souverain, ils ont qualité d'agents publics posant des actes de puissance publique dans l'exercice de fonctions assimilables à la fonction judiciaire, puisqu'ils en constituent le nécessaire prolongement.

Les règles et immunités relatives aux agents publics leur sont donc applicables, mutatis mutandis. [19] [ 50 ] As agents or officers of the court, paragraph 3 of

article 685 C.C.P. affords bailiffs a limited immunity from prosecution in carrying out forced execution matters and which relate to an eviction, the removal of property or the seizure of the debtor’s property or of a passenger vehicle or to a sale under judicial authority as the method of realization in execution of a judgment. [ 51 ] This qualified immunity of bailiffs as officers of the court is explained as follows in the Commentaires de la ministre de la justice : Cet article, de droit nouveau, prévoit que l'huissier a un devoir d'impartialité ainsi qu'un devoir général d'information envers tous ceux qui participent au processus d'exécution et qu'il peut également accomplir tout acte nécessaire à l'exécution de sa mission.

Ces devoirs et pouvoirs sont liés au fait que, dans l'exercice de sa fonction, il agit à

titre d'officier de justice.

L'article impose également à l'huissier une obligation d'information particulière envers le débiteur et le tiers-saisi quant au processus d'exécution et, entre autres choses, quant aux règles de calcul de la

partie saisissable des revenus. Il prévoit également que l'huissier doit exécuter les instructions des créanciers de la manière la plus avantageuse pour toutes les parties et l'oblige en outre à informer les créanciers du dépôt de l'avis d'exécution et à les inviter à l'aviser de leur réclamation en lui fournissant les éléments utiles pour en établir l'exigibilité. La disposition attribue à l'huissier une immunité dans l'exercice de ses fonctions, sauf dans les cas de faute lourde ou intentionnelle. Cette immunité, qui s'inspire de l'ancien

article 610.5, est cependant limitée à certains actes pour lesquels l'huissier doit décider des actions à entreprendre avec célérité et efficacité. [20] [ 52 ] In the Précis de procédure civile , Ferland and Emery write in relation to the civil liability of bailiffs: 2.2 La responsabilité civile de l'huissier 2-2198 –

L'article 685 encadre aussi la responsabilité civile de l'huissier dans le contexte de l'exécution en la limitant à la mauvaise foi, à la faute lourde 194 ou intentionnelle, et ce, dans certains cas précis. Il jouit donc d'une immunité assez large vis-à-vis d'éventuelles poursuites que pourraient susciter ses actes et décisions, plus particulièrement dans le contexte de la vente sous contrôle de justice où il a discrétion pour choisir le mode de vente qu'il croit le plus approprié (art. 744 ).

Par contre, même si le Code lui accorde une telle marge de manoeuvre, l'utilisation abusive, par un huissier, de la force pour exécuter un jugement constitue une faute susceptible d'entraîner sa condamnation à payer des dommages-intérêts compensatoires à la victime ( art. 1457 et 1611 C.c.Q. ) ; si en plus, il a porté atteinte de façon intentionnelle et illicite à un droit reconnu par la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, il pourra aussi être condamné à payer des dommages-intérêts punitifs. (Underlining added) [ 53 ] This immunity from civil liability is commented on as follows by Lucie Lauzière: Dans l'exercice de ses fonctions, l'huissier n'a pas à mettre en doute la validité des ordres qu'il reçoit.

L'exécution de bonne foi d'une ordonnance qui a toutes les apparences de validité ne saurait l'exposer à une quelconque responsabilité, puisque alors aucune faute n'est

commise, et ce, même si l'annulation des actes de l'huissier devait en résulter. [21] [ 54 ] Accordingly, the bailiff who executed the Notice of Eviction can only be liable to Ms. Pawelek if she proves he acted in bad faith or committed an intentional or a gross fault in carrying out the Notice of Eviction. [ 55 ] The bailiff, like any other person, is presumed to have acted in good faith. [22] [ 56 ] As the Supreme Court of Canada states in Hinse v.

Canada (A.G.), bad faith can be established by proving that a person acted deliberately with the specific intent to harm another person. [23] It can also include proof of serious carelessness or recklessness that reveals a breakdown of the orderly exercise of authority so fundamental that absence of good faith can be deduced and bad faith presumed. [24] Finally, bad faith conduct is also one where “the act, in terms of how it is performed, is then inexplicable and incomprehensible, to the point that it can be regarded as an actual abuse of power, having regard to the purposes for which it is meant to be exercised.” [25] [ 57 ]

Article 1474 C.C.Q. defines a gross fault as a fault which shows gross recklessness, gross carelessness or gross negligence. It is akin to conduct that encompasses serious recklessness. [ 58 ] Mr. Labbé, a bailiff with the firm Saulnier Robillard Lortie Huissiers de Justice Inc., oversaw the execution of the Notice of Eviction on December 9. He has been a bailiff since 1985, and forced executions have been his bread and butter since 1990. [ 59 ] In 2016, an average year, he performed roughly 125 forced evictions.

He is an experienced bailiff. [ 60 ] He was accompanied by four employees from a mover, as well as a representative of the building management firm hired by the BMO. [ 61 ] Mr. Labbé or his firm hired the movers who would assist him in executing the Notice of Eviction. He has worked with them on numerous forced evictions and the process is well known to them. [ 62 ] Mr. Labbé and the other participants arrived at the Property at approximately 8:00 AM and stayed there until roughly 4:00 PM. [ 63 ] When Mr. Labbé arrived at the Property, Ms.

Pawelek was absent as she had left for work. [ 64 ] She only returned sometime between 11:30 and noon. [ 65 ] Mr. Labbé enters the Property after picking the lock of the front door. Once this was done, the locks are changed. [ 66 ] He is aghast as he enters the premises. The smell of dog urine is so strong that his knees buckle. He notices a small white dog in the Property. He notices dog feces on the floor and traces of dog urine on the lower portions of many of the walls of the residence. [ 67 ] He calls Berger Blanc, an animal shelter, to retrieve the dog. [ 68 ] The residence is dilapidated.

The furniture is old and in very poor condition. The refrigerator and the stove are rusted, from what appears to be exposure to urine. [ 69 ] In his more than 30 years of carrying out eviction notices, he has rarely seen a residence in such poor shape. [ 70 ] All of Ms. Pawelek’s furniture and personal belongings are still in the Property, despite the warning to remove this personal property made in the Notice of Eviction. [ 71 ] Ms. Pawelek does not refute Mr. Labbé’s testimony as to the overall condition of the Property. Moreover, the numerous photos filed into evidence by both parties corroborate Mr.

Labbé’s description of the state of the Property and the movable property that had been left in it by Ms. Pawelek. [26] [ 72 ] The movers pack the movable property into boxes and bags, which are left outside on the sidewalk. [27] [ 73 ] Mr. Labbé has taken the precaution of informing the City of Montreal that he was carrying out an eviction at the Property, so that it can dispatch a truck to come recover Ms. Pawelek’s movable property left on the sidewalk. He does this to protect the movable property from looting and exposure to the elements if it was left outside overnight.

The City of Montreal dispatches a Go-Cube truck to recover the movable property. [ 74 ] Ultimately, Ms. Pawelek is able to recover the movable property after paying the Bank what she owed. [ 75 ] In taking this precaution, Mr. Labbé is acting as the Code requires him to, namely, he is carrying out the Notice of Eviction not only in the manner that is most advantageous to the bank, but also to Ms. Pawelek. [28] [ 76 ] Ms. Pawelek arrives on the premises in the late morning. According to Mr. Labbé, she is hysterical. He tries to calm her down and explain what is going on, but she cannot be reasoned with.

He calls a police officer from the SPVM who arrives on the premises. [ 77 ] Ms. Pawelek claims that when she arrived at her Property, she tried to get answers from the persons who were on site, but no one would provide any information. Her goal was to enter the Property and recover her belongings. She was not allowed to do so. [ 78 ] Firstly, if Ms. Pawelek did not know what was transpiring on December 9 at the Property, she bears much of the blame. Had she read the Notice of Eviction that was served on her December 2, she would have known that she was being evicted from her house.

She would also have learned that she had to remove all her personal belongings before December 7. She did none of this.

[ 79 ] Secondly, her testimony as to the behaviour of the bank’s employees, Mr. Labbé, and the mover is vague, bereft of details as to their alleged faults, improbable and prone to exaggeration. [ 80 ] Mr. Labbé asserts that he tried to explain to Ms. Pawelek that he was executing the Notice of Eviction and explain what here rights were in this context. After more than twenty minutes of trying to do so, he stopped because she was uncooperative and screaming. [ 81 ] Mr. Labbé nonetheless informs the police officers that Ms.

Pawelek’s dog has been entrusted to Berger Blanc, and they relay this information to her so that she can retrieve her dog. [ 82 ] Mr. Labbé’s testimony in this regard is clear, forthright and credible. The Court prefers his version of the events over Ms. Pawelek’s, notably for the reasons explained below. Mr. Labbé properly performed his duty of information as required by paragraph 2 of

article 685 C.C.P. [ 83 ] Ms. Pawelek adds that after leaving the Property, she went to her BMO branch and spoke to the manager to find out what was happening. She claims that once again, nobody was able to explain to her what was going on. [ 84 ] Ms. Charbonneau, a manager in the collections department of the BMO, spoke to Ms. Pawelek and the branch manager on the afternoon of December 9. [ 85 ] Ms. Charbonneau explained over the phone to Ms. Pawelek the details of the process concerning the Notice of Eviction and what had led to it. [ 86 ] She too recalls that Ms.

Pawelek was very agitated during their conversation. Her behaviour was so disruptive that the branch manager had to call the police to come to the branch to try to calm Ms. Pawelek down. [ 87 ] The Court prefers Ms. Charbonneau’s version of the events over Ms. Pawelek’s. The Court finds that the bank’s employee acted in good faith in explaining the execution proceedings and co-operated with her. [ 88 ] Ms. Pawelek provided no details as to what fault was committed by the movers, the bailiff or the BMO’s employees. She invites the Court to conclude that a fault was committed because

a) no one gave her any information,

b) the Property was found to be damaged when she reintegrated the Property on January 19, 2017, and

c) her personal belongings were damaged when she recovered them. [ 89 ] The bank’s witness and Mr. Labbé state that no one involved in the execution of the Notice of Eviction damaged any of Ms. Pawelek’s personal belongings or the Property. [ 90 ] The bank states that it had no interest in damaging the property as its goal was to sell the property at the highest possible price to recoup the debt owed by Ms. Pawelek. [ 91 ] These arguments are convincing. [ 92 ] As for the alleged damages to movable property and the Property itself, the BMO and Mr.

Labbé explain that they took all reasonable precautions to preserve the integrity of the goods. The Court finds their evidence compelling and credible. [ 93 ] While Ms. Pawelek claims otherwise, the Court disagrees with her as her testimony is not credible and refuted by the photographic evidence.

For example, she claims that the bailiff or the movers caused the faucet of a bathroom sink on the ground floor to leak, which caused water to seep through the floor and make a hole in the ceiling of the basement. [29] [ 94 ] Yet, a photo taken on December 9 and entered into evidence by the BMO shows that the hole already existed on the day the eviction was carried out! [30] [ 95 ] The photographic evidence contradicts Ms. Pawelek assertions in other aspects as well.

For example, they show that the Bank’s property manager took the precaution of pouring antifreeze liquid in the water pipes of the Property to prevent freezing pipes from exploding and damaging the Property. [31] [ 96 ] This demonstrates that the Bank acted reasonably and prudently and took steps to protect itself, but also Ms. Pawelek’s interests. [ 97 ] The Court’s conclusion in this case is similar to the one reached by Justice Godbout in Bouchard v. Québec (Ville de) [32] , where he addressed a situation which bears much resemblance to the case at hand.

He notably held that a debtor who faces a notice of eviction must take steps to rid the premises of his/her personal belongings before the notice is executed: [55] Force est de constater, vu l'état des lieux au moment où le huissier Réjean Chabot a commencé son travail, tel qu'il appert des photographies produites et des témoignages entendus, que le demandeur n'avait pas réussi à retirer beaucoup de ses effets des lieux qu'il occupait, et ce, malgré le fait que depuis le mois de juin 2006, il savait et ne pouvait pas ignorer qu'il était susceptible d'être expulsé des lieux qu'il occupait alors. [56] Certes, un locataire qui conteste par voie de requêtes en rétractation de jugement et de requête pour permission d'en appeler une radiation de bail et un ordre d'expulsion peut espérer que ses démarches auront un effet positif pour lui. [57] Cependant, la diligence et la prévoyance commandaient également à monsieur Bouchard de se prémunir contre des résultats qui pouvaient être négatifs à la suite de ses démarches judiciaires en prévoyant un lieu d'entreposage suffisant pour y déposer tous ce qui se trouvait dans son appartement, et dont lui seul pouvait apprécier, à ce moment là, la quantité réelle, la valeur et l'importance. [58] Rien ne fut véritablement entrepris à cet effet par le demandeur, compte tenu de la quantité très importante d'effets de divers genres qu'il possédait.

Il a déclaré qu'une connaissance lui avait offert un local et affirmé qu'il y avait déjà entreposé certains biens.

[59] Lorsqu’il est nécessaire de consacrer trois journées à plusieurs hommes afin de retirer d’un appartement type 4½ tous les biens qui s’y trouvent, on ne peut pas considérer que les efforts fournis par le locataire qui allait être expulsé furent en proportion avec la quantité de biens qu’il conservait dans ces lieux et qu'il souhaitait garder. [60] La Cour est d’opinion que le processus qui fut suivi par l’officier de justice chargé de l’exécution du bref d’expulsion et de mise en possession est conforme aux règles à suivre dans un tel cas. [61] L’importance du volume des objets à retirer des lieux commandait une attention particulière et obligeait ce huissier instrumentant à s’assurer des conditions les plus optimales pour une exécution ordonnée de son mandat. [62] Ainsi, la mise à l’écart du locataire était nécessaire pour garantir un fonctionnement efficace de l’équipe chargée de vider les lieux.

Il a permis à monsieur Bouchard quelques minutes à quelques reprises, pour que ce dernier puisse prendre certaines choses, mais il n’avait même pas à le faire, compte tenu de tout le temps dont ce dernier avait disposé pour le faire depuis qu’il avait été avisé, une première fois, que son expulsion des lieux avait été ordonnée par la Régie du logement. [63] Le partage entre ce qui était périssable et ce qui ne l’était pas fait

partie de la tâche d’un huissier chargé de conduire une opération d’expulsion qui nécessite de vider les lieux de tout son contenu, et il doit seul décider de ce qui doit être détruit.

En l’espèce, monsieur Chabot a précisé qu’il avait marqué de la lettre "V" pour vidange les denrées périssables et le papier. [64] Cette décision fut prise en considération de l’ampleur du travail à accomplir et la preuve offerte a démontré qu’elle était pleinement justifiée dans les circonstances. [65] La Cour conclut à l’absence de faute de la part du huissier Réjean Chabot. [66] Concernant la défenderesse Nap Giroux Inc., ses employés étaient chargés de l’emballage des effets qui se trouvaient dans l’appartement qu’ils devaient vider et le transport de ces contenants à l’extérieur de l’immeuble et leur dépôt sur le carreau, c’est-à-dire le trottoir. [67] Les hommes affectés à cette tâche peuvent être qualifiés de professionnels du déménagement, puisqu’ils exercent ce métier depuis de nombreuses années.

Les témoignages entendus démontrent qu’ils ont agi selon les règles de l’art en exécutant les directives reçues du huissier chargé de l’exécution du bref d’expulsion et de mise en possession, monsieur Réjean Chabot. [68] Le demandeur n’a pas offert une preuve suffisante pouvant établir dans quel état étaient ses biens lorsqu’il fut invité à quitter l’appartement le 12 décembre 2006. En fait, cette preuve est à tout fin pratique inexistante.

Ce sont les photographies prises par monsieur Chabot, le huissier, et qui furent produites en liasse comme pièce D-8 qui constituent, en quelque sorte, la meilleure preuve de l’état de ces biens. [69] Cependant, ces photographies ne furent prises que pour démontrer l’état des lieux.

On ne peut donc pas en inférer des conclusions certaines quant à l’état réel des biens de monsieur Bouchard avant qu’ils soient emballés et retirés des lieux. [70] La Cour conclut donc à l’absence de preuve, avec le caractère prépondérant requis, permettant d’établir une faute quelconque de la défenderesse Nap Giroux inc. et/ou de ses préposés. [71] L’OMHQ est propriétaire de l’immeuble où habitait monsieur Bouchard et c’est à ce

titre qu’elle a requis et obtenu la radiation du bail qui la liait avec lui et son expulsion des lieux. [72] Ce droit lui appartient en propre et la preuve démontre qu’elle l’a exercé conformément aux prescriptions de la Loi. Elle n’a donc pas commis de faute en agissant de la sorte. [73] Quant à sa participation à l’opération d’évacuation forcée par main de Justice, son action fut très limitée, son ou ses représentants ayant prêté assistance au huissier instrumentant dans l’exécution de son mandat.

On ne peut lui tenir rigueur d’avoir fait changer la serrure de la porte de l’appartement et d’avoir même retiré cette porte pour faciliter les opérations à ceux qui étaient chargés de sortir les emballages contenant les effets de monsieur Bouchard. [74] L’OMHQ et/ou ses préposés n’ont pas commis de faute lors de l’exécution du bref d’expulsion et de mise en possession qui avait été correctement obtenu de la Régie du logement. [ 98 ] Just like Justice Godbout concluded in Bouchard , the Court finds that Ms.

Pawelek has not proven that any of the participants involved in the carrying out of the Notice of Eviction have committed a fault, much less a gross fault. [ 99 ] Ms. Pawelek has not rebutted the presumption of good faith under art. 2805 C.C.Q. and shown absence of good faith in the conduct of the bailiff, the Bank’s employees or the movers. [ 100 ] Ms. Pawelek has not proven that the bailiff acted in bad faith or committed a gross or intentional fault in carrying out the Notice of Eviction. To the contrary, the bailiff acted in good faith and committed no fault.

He acted reasonably as a prudent and diligent bailiff would have behaved placed in the same circumstances, took steps to inform Ms. Pawelek of the content of the Notice of Eviction, and executed it so as not to cause harm to her. [ 101 ] Moreover, she has failed to convince the Court that the BMO, or its employees or the movers, committed a fault in the execution the Judgment and the Notice of Eviction. The right to claim compensation for damages caused to the movable property which Ms.

Pawelek left on the premises on the day of the eviction: [ 102 ] In any event, even if she had proved that the BMO or the mover had committed a fault, or that the bailiff had committed an

intentional or gross fault, and had damaged some or all of her movable property, Ms. Pawelek lacks standing to claim compensation for damages to this movable property because she abandoned it. [ 103 ]

Article 693 C.C.P. states that any movable property left on the premises on eviction of the debtor is deemed to have been abandoned by the debtor and the bailiff may dispose of it as he sees fit. [ 104 ] According to the Commentaires de la ministre de la justice : Cet article, de droit nouveau, prévoit la procédure que l'huissier doit suivre lorsque le débiteur quitte l'immeuble en y laissant des meubles . L'huissier peut disposer des biens laissés sur place, compte tenu de la présomption absolue d'abandon . La disposition s'inspire de l’

article 945 du Code civil en permettant à l’huissier de les donner à un organisme de bienfaisance s’ils ne sont pas susceptibles d’être vendus ou, s’ils ne peuvent être donnés, d’en disposer à son gré. [33] [ 105 ] The Notice of Execution served on Ms. Pawelek on December 2, 2016, clearly reminded of her of this rule and warned her to remove all her movable property by December 7: À LA PERSONNE CONTRE QUI DES MESURES D’EXÉCUTION SONT PRISES, vous devez retirer vos meubles dans un délai de 5 jour(

s) ou payer les frais engagés pour ce faire. Si vous refusez de le faire, vos meubles seront réputés abandonnés (922 al. 2 et 693 C.p.c. ) et l’huissier pourra les vendre, les donner à un organisme de bienfaisance ou en disposer à son gré (693 C.p.c ). [34] [ 106 ] Ms., Pawelek did not heed this warning. When she left her Property on December 9 to go to work, all her personal belongings were still in her residence. [ 107 ] By doing so, she abandoned all the movable property left in the property on December 9.

This implies that she also relinquished all right to possessing the movable property and any proprietary rights in these goods. As a result, the movable property which she claims was damaged by the bailiff or the movers was no longer hers when the injurious acts occurred. Thus she has no standing or right to claim compensation for damages allegedly inflicted on the movable property. [35]

e) Is BMO bound to make reparation for injury caused to Ms. Pawelek by the fault of the bailiff or the mover? [ 108 ] Ms. Pawelek’s lawsuit is directed at BMO. Her recourse against the bank is based on the rules of contractual liability. [ 109 ] She has not sued the bailiff, Mr. Labbé, or his employer, nor the moving company that assisted Mr.

Labbé. [ 110 ] She argues that BMO should be liable for the faults committed by the bailiff or the mover. [ 111 ] The Court has already concluded above that neither the bailiff nor the mover who assisted him to carry out the Notice of Eviction committed a fault in this case. [ 112 ] That said, even if the Court had concluded otherwise, BMO could not be held liable for the faults committed by these persons. [ 113 ] When the bailiff executed the Notice of Eviction on December 9, 2016, it did so pursuant to a contract for services between it and BMO, and not under a contract of mandate. [36] [ 114 ] As for the mover, he was hired by the bailiff, not by the bank. [ 115 ] The distinction is important because had the relationships between BMO and the bailiff or the mover qualified as a contract of mandate, then under

article 2160 C.C.Q. , BMO would be liable towards Ms. Pawelek if she had proven that its mandataries ( i.e. , the bailiff or the mover) committed a fault. [ 116 ] However, as a general rule, a person who contracts with a service provider such as a mover or a bailiff is not personally liable towards third persons for the faults that may be committed by these providers of services in the performance of their services. [ 117 ] Paragraph 3 of

article 1457 C.C.Q. states that a person is also bound, “ in certain cases , to make reparation for injury caused to another by the act, omission or fault of another person …” [ 118 ] Those cases where a person may be bound to make reparation for injury caused to another by the act, omission or fault of another person are specifically contemplated in articles 1459 to 1469 C.C.Q . However, it is arguable that this extra-contractual regime does not apply to the BMO’s contractual liability. [37] [ 119 ] Contractual liability for the fault of another only exists where it is specifically stipulated in the Civil Code , for example in articles 2101 and 2160 C.C.Q. [ 120 ]

Article 2160 does not apply for the reasons outlined above. [ 121 ] Likewise, this is not case where

article 2101 C.C.Q. applies because while the mover is arguably a subcontractor of the bailiff, Ms. Pawelek has no contractual relationship with the bailiff, and moreover, has not sued the bailiff. [ 122 ] In short, even if the evidence had shown that the bailiff’s or the mover’s liability was triggered, the BMO could not be held liable for their faults.

f) What injury, if any, was caused to Ms. Pawelek by BMO’s fault? [ 123 ] This question is moot considering that the Court has concluded that Ms. Pawelek has failed to prove that either the BMO, the bailiff or the mover committed a fault in executing the Judgment or the Notice of Eviction.

[ 124 ] That said, the Court will nonetheless summarily address the different heads of damages claimed. [ 125 ] Ms.

Pawelek claims $15,000 in damages, which includes $1,000 for loss of reputation, $2,500 for moral damages and stress, $5,500 for damaged furniture, $3,000 for repairing the damages caused to the Property, $2,000 for replacing missing or broken property (crystal, gold plated dishes, jewelry) and $1,000 for cleaning carpets and floors. [ 126 ] No damages could be awarded for loss of reputation given, as stated above, the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [ 127 ] Likewise, no damages could be awarded for the damaged furniture (bookcase, sofa, bedroom dresser, headboard, buffet, etc…) or the alleged missing or broken crystal, gold plated dishes and jewelry since, as the Court concluded above, Ms.

Pawelek, failed to remove this movable property from the Property notwithstanding being warned to do so in the Notice of Eviction, thereby abandoning this movable property and relinquishing ownership rights and lacking standing to sue. [ 128 ] No damages would have been awarded for moral damages or stress, as this was self-inflicted. [ 129 ] As for the damages allegedly caused to the Property, the Court notes that the photos taken by the BMO or its property agent on December 9 establish that the interior of the residence was in dilapidated state when the eviction process commenced. [38] There is no clear and convincing proof that the BMO, the bailiff or the mover caused the damages that Ms.

Pawelek complains of. [ 130 ] Finally, while she claims damages for repairing the Property and cleaning the carpets and the floor, she entered into evidence no invoices or estimates from third persons to support her claim. [39] Given the lack of admissible and probative evidence, the Court could not award any damages under this head. [40] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 131 ] DISMISSES Monika Pawelek’s claim; [ 132 ] WITH COSTS of $300 payable by Monika Pawelek to the Bank of Montreal. __________________________________ ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: June 11, 2019.