2021 QCCQ 968, 2021 QCCQ 968

Rubbo c. Sabatini 2021 QCCQ 968 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-159039-181 DATE: February 18, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MARIA RUBBO Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant v.

JOSEPH SABATINI and 9193-8779 QUÉBEC INC. doing business under the firm and style name of SERVICES IMMOBILIERS TRIANGLE Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff herself was not present at trial, but was represented by Vincenzo Di Giorgio (representation mandate dated September 28, 2018). [ 2 ] Plaintiff is suing defendants, alleging the non-execution of a services contract. [ 3 ] At the hearing, Di Giorgio amended the application, to add 9193-8779 Québec Inc. as a defendant (hereafter “the Company”). [ 4 ] The Company is a certified real estate broker, which does business under the firm and style name of “ Services Immobiliers Triangle ”. [ 5 ] On May 12, 2018, a services contract intervened between plaintiff and the Company (contract, exhibit P-3). [ 6 ] The obligations of the Company are set-out, as follows, in the contract: ʺ Services Immobiliers Triangle 1- Fait et paie la publicité. 2- Trouve un locataire selon le ʺ Locataire Idéaux recherchés ʺ . 3- Fait visiter le logement au locataire potentiel.

4- Vérifie le crédit et emploi du locataire potentiel. 5- Vérifie les références face à l’ancien propriétaire. 6- Confectionne le bail selon les spécifications du contractant. ʺ [ 7 ] Plaintiff alleges as follows, in her application: ʺ The Defendant failed totally at the services he was given mandate to render, find prospective tenats. The Defendant’s years of experience in his feild does not justify the errors made in his work. Did not respect the instructions of his mandate.

Research was done 20-May-2018. ʺ (application dated September 28, 2018) [ 8 ] Plaintiff had the burden of proof ( s. 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec ). [ 9 ] Plaintiff did not, in fact, prove, on a balance of probabilities, the allegations contained in her application. [ 10 ] According to the preponderance of evidence, the Company proved that it fulfilled its obligations under the contract; and, more specifically, each of items 1 through 6 above-listed (documentation proving Company’s work, exhibits D-1, D-2, D-3 and D-4). [ 11 ] It is true that plaintiff would have ideally preferred a family comprised of a couple with 2 rather than 3 children, as tenants (contract, « Locataires Idéaux Recherchés »).

However, the tenants themselves lied to Company president Joseph Sabatini, falsely stating that they had 2 rather than 3 children.

The Company cannot be held liable therefor. [ 12 ] The Court believes Sabatini’s testimony when he declared that he verified the tenants’ declaration, via a third party reference, namely a previous landlord’s family member; and, even if this were not true, as suggested by Di Giorgio, this does not negate the fact that the Company respected the contract, and that plaintiff’s 2-children-preference was only that, a preference , which, by definition, is not binding. [ 13 ] It should also be noted that the tenants found by the Company, remained in the premises for the entire 12-month period; always paid their rent; and, other than having a 3 rd child, whom Di Giorgio claims he could hear walking during the day, the tenants presented no other nuisance or problem (lease, exhibit P-4). [ 14 ] For all of these reasons, the Court believes that plaintiff’s demand is unfounded. [ 15 ] As for the cross-demand, it is equally unfounded, as defendants were unable to substantiate their allegations.

In fact, at trial, Sabatini spontaneously declared and admitted that ʺhe (couldn’

t) prove (the allegations)ʺ. [ 16 ] Lastly, there is no lien de droit between plaintiff and Joseph Sabatini personally. WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES the demand, as amended; DISMISSES the cross-demand; EACH PARTY paying its own costs, given the outcome of the proceedings. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: February 2, 2021