2011 QCCQ 15683, 2011 QCCQ 15683

Jaimungal c. Waldron 2011 QCCQ 15683 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-126612-110 DATE: December 9, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SUZANNE HANDMAN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ GRACE JAIMUNGAL [...], Dollard-des-Ormeaux, QC., [...] Plaintiff v.

VINCENT WALDRON [...], Laval, QC. [...] Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Grace Jaimungal is suing Vincent Waldron for $920, alleging that he failed to complete the electrical work he did in her house. Mr. Waldron submits he was willing to finish the job but Ms. Jaimungal was unavailable. The evidence: [ 2 ] Ms. Jaimungal hired Mr. Waldron to do electrical work in her garage. He did the work on September 26, 2009 and opened a wall for the electrical wiring.

He provided a Spanish language guide for the programmable wall switch although Ms. Jaimungal does not read that language. He was to return on October 3rd to repair the wall but did not do so. Mr. Waldron claimed Ms. Jaimungal had to leave her house before he finished and he was therefore unable to do the repair at that time. [ 3 ] Ms. Jaimungal paid Mr. Waldon $311.79. She declared she had called him several times but his voice mail was full and she was unable to reach him. [ 4 ] On February 19, 2009, Ms.

Jaimungal obtained an estimate for the repair from a contractor; on the same day she answered “Please proceed with the …. Work”. [ 5 ] On March 24, 2010, Ms. Jaimungal asked Mr. Waldron to retrieve the switch timer since it was of no use without instructions. She advised him that she intended to pay another person to complete the work and would bill him for the costs but did not provide him with the estimate. [ 6 ] Mr. Waldon retrieved Ms. Jaimungal’s letter on March 31, 2010. He replied on April 1, 2010, advising Ms.

Jaimungal he was not refusing to complete the job but she had never arranged for a time to do the work. He had spoken to her ex-husband in an attempt to reach her since she had not given him her telephone number. Mr. Waldon however provided his phone number. Ms. Jaimungal claims she could have been reached and has an answering machine. [ 7 ] Mr. Waldon left a document in Ms. Jaimungal's mailbox, dated May 10th 2010, asking her to call him. Ms. Jaimungal says she never received it. [ 8 ] Ms. Jaimungal claimed Mr. Waldon called her; he said she called him. However, they both agree an appointment was made

for Sunday, May 16th. According to Ms. Jaimungal, Mr. Waldon did not show up at 1:00, as planned, and she waited for him all afternoon. Mr. Waldon says he arrived 45 minutes late and waited for over half an hour; no one was home and he was unable to reach her by phone after that. [ 9 ] Ms. Jaimungal alleges she paid another contractor to do the remaining work and block the hole in the wall in late May or June. Analysis: [ 10 ] Mr. Waldron created a hole in the wall of Ms. Jaimungal's garage when he did the electrical work and did not cover the opening or repair the wall.

In addition, the timer he installed could not be used, without instructions. [ 11 ] Ms. Jaimungal is seeking damages of $920 for her costs: $79.50 for a switch timer, $450 to repair the wall; $80 for correspondence, $22 to find Mr. Waldron, $28.80 for registered mail, $60 for gas and parking, $200 for loss of time and inconvenience. [ 12 ] The Court considers that Ms. Jaimungal is entitled to $79.50 for the switch timer since she could not understand the Spanish instructions and could not use the device. Mr. Waldon claims the instructions from Home Depot are in a foreign language or in French.

However, he did not attempt to exchange the Spanish booklet, which he had left her. [ 13 ] Ms. Jaimungal is claiming $450 to repair the garage wall, alleging the repair was done at the end of May. However, the Court is not satisfied that Ms. Jaimungal had the wall repaired in the spring. Her e-mail to another contractor asking for an estimate is dated February 19, 2010. Ms. Jaimungal never explained to the Court why the repair was allegedly done at the end of May when she clearly instructed the other contractor to proceed to repair the wall in February 2010. [ 14 ] Moreover, Ms.

Jaimungal did not provide the Court with the contractor's bill or proof of payment. It is not clear when the work was done and what payment was made, if any. In light of these facts as well as Mr. Waldron’s attempt to meet with Ms. Jaimungal to repair the wall, the Court rejects this aspect of the claim. [ 15 ] Ms. Jaimungal is not entitled to $80 she paid to an agency to type her demand letters; such work is not necessary, nor is she entitled to $60 for gas and parking to deal with her procedure.

Travelling and parking costs as well as the time spent to institute proceedings or defend a case are part of the usual expenses related to any litigation and do not give rise to compensation. [ 16 ] However, since Ms. Jaimungal paid $22 to locate Mr. Waldron, she is entitled to claim this sum. Given the attempt of both parties to reach each other, the Court is not granting any compensation for Ms. Jaimungal's trouble and inconvenience. Accordingly, the total amount awarded to Ms. Jaimungal, by the Court, comes to $101.50.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS , in part, Plaintiff's action; CONDEMNS Vincent Waldron to pay Grace Jaimungal, the sum of $101.50 with interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity foreseen by

section 1619 of the civil code of Quebec since October 21, 2010, and the judicial costs of $70. __________________________________ SUZANNE HANDMAN, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: September 26, 2011