2015 QCCQ 6155, 2015 QCCQ 6155

Inso-Tec inc. c. McGillvray 2015 QCCQ 6155 COURT OF QUEBEC « Small Claims » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF PONTIAC LOCALITÉ OF CAMPBELL’S BAY « Civil Division » N° : 555-32-000015-145 DATE : July 15, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE JEAN FAULLEM, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ INSO-TEC INC., 352, Route 301, Litchfield (Quebec) J0X 1H) Plaintiff v.

ÉLAINE McGILLVRAY, […] , Gatineau (Quebec) […] Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JF 1075 JUGDMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] For the reasons more fully set forth orally at the audience of July 6, 2015, and particularly : A. As to the principal claim [ 2 ] WHEREAS it is for a person wishing to assert a right to prove the facts on which his claim is based, in accordance with

section 2803 of the Civil Code of Québec ( CCQ ); [ 3 ] WHEREAS the evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of the fact more probable than its non-existence, in accordance with

section 2804 CCQ; [ 4 ] WHEREAS the Plantiff wishes to demonstrate the existence of an oral contract worth more than $1 500; [ 5 ] WHEREAS a contract is formed when and where the offeror receives the acceptance of the offer, in accordance with

section 1387 CCQ; [ 6 ] WHEREAS the Plaintiff alleges that the defendant accepted the offer during a telephone conversation; [ 7 ] WHEREAS proof of a juridical act may not be made, between the parties, by testimony where the value of the contract in dispute exceeds $1 500, unless there is a commencement of proof, in accordance with

section 2862 CCQ; [ 8 ] WHEREAS a commencement of proof may arise from an admission or a writing emanating from the adverse party, his testimony or the production of material things, when such means makes probable the alleged fact, according to

section 2865 CCQ; [ 9 ] WHEREAS the Defendant denies having accepted the terms and conditions of the offer received from the Plaintiff on April 28, 2014; [ 10 ] WHEREAS there is no admission or writing emanating from the Defendant or any material things proving the acceptance of the offer presented to her on April 28, 2014; [ 11 ] WHEREAS, however, the admission of the Defendant as to the value of the work done by the Plaintiff in relation to the snow removal of her property in March 2014, services for which a sum of $138.56 was invoiced by the Plaintiff; [ 12 ] WHEREAS Plaintiff failed to cash the check of $138.56 dated July 15, 2014 that was sent to it by the Defendant in payment for the snow removal done in March, 2014; [ 13 ] THEREFORE, the Defendant has to pay to the Plaintiff $138.56, representing the cost of snow removal done at her request, with interest at the legal rate, plus the additional indemnity provided by

section 1619 CCQ, calculated as of July 15, 2014;

B. As to the counterclaim [ 14 ] WHEREAS absence of preponderant evidence presented by the Defendant as to the causal link between the damage she claimed her cottage plumbing had suffered and the work carried out by the Plaintiff. No expert report or testimony of an expert was presented at trial to establish the causal link; [ 15 ] WHEREAS the mere filing of an invoice from Construction Terry G.

Richard does not constitute preponderance evidence showing that the alleged damage has been caused by the work done by the Plaintiff. [ 16 ] FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANT in part the action; [ 18 ] CONDEMNS the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff $ 138,56, without cost, but bearing legal interest and the additional indemnity provided by

section 1619 CCQ, calculated as of July 15, 2014; [ 19 ] DISMISES the counterclaim, without cost. __________________________________ JEAN FAULLEM, J.C.Q. Date of hearing : July 6, 2015