2017 QCCQ 11855, 2017 QCCQ 11855

Boisrond c. Djiang 2017 QCCQ 11855 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-152057-164 DATE: September 1, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ERIC DUFOUR, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ FRÉDÉRIC BOISROND Plaintiff vs.

DANIELLE DJIANG Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff claims $6,000 from Defendant following a contract of services signed on September 22, 2014. Plaintiff is notably a consultant who provides mentoring services to business people who start up companies. [ 2 ] Defendant is a businesswoman beginning to do business in Québec. She concedes that she retained Plaintiff’s services, but alleges that she did not speak French enough to fully understand what she was signing.

She also complains about the quality of the services she received and denies owing any amount of money to Plaintiff. The questions in dispute [ 3 ] The questions in dispute are:

A) Did the Defendant give a valid consent when signing the contract?

B) Has Plaintiff proven his damages? The facts [ 4 ] In 2014, Defendant started an Import – Export company dedicated to the Québec and Chinese markets. Since she was new in Québec, Defendant asked Plaintiff to counsel her on the manner to do business in the province. [ 5 ] The parties signed a contract of services [1] . The agreement provides that Defendant will pay a lump sum of $4,000 per year for mentoring services. She would have access to Plaintiff’s services as many times as she wanted during the year, from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015.

The contract also provides for payments of $50 per hour each time Defendant would require Plaintiff to accompany her during business meetings, for the drafting of documents and for research services. [ 6 ] Plaintiff sent a formal notice to Defendant on April 9, 2015 [2] , asking for the payment of $4,500 plus tax. [ 7 ] Defendant paid $2,500 [3] , but refuses to pay the remainder of the invoice, stating first that she misunderstood contract P-1 and second, that Plaintiff’s services were of poor quality. Analysis

A) Did the Defendant give a valid consent when signing the contract? [ 8 ] When Defendant signed contract P-1, she was accompanied by her partner, a French speaking Quebecer. Plaintiff testifies that Defendant specifically asked that the contract be written in French. He also says that he orally translated the contract in English and summarized the clauses. [ 9 ] Considering the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Defendant do not convince the Court that she didn’t understand the contract she signed. Moreover, nothing in the evidence shows that Plaintiff took advantage of the situation or misguided Defendant.

According to Plaintiff, Defendant fully understood the very simple clauses of the contract. Despite what she argues, Defendant did not prove any defect in her consent and contract P-1 is therefore valid [4] .

B) Has Plaintiff proven his damages? [ 10 ] As provided for in contract P-1, Plaintiff’s fees for attending business meetings are $50 per hour. Defendant does not deny that

Plaintiff did attend to those meetings, but refuses to pay because she was disappointed with the results. For example, Defendant complains about the accountant Plaintiff presented to her. She says that this accountant couldn’t file her income tax returns. Besides Defendant’s testimony, the Court has no proof of that fact. Even so, such allegations do not allow the Defendant to escape from her contractual obligations and she must pay for the services rendered by the Plaintiff. [ 11 ] At hearing, Plaintiff amended his invoice to correct technical errors. Defendant did not object.

The claim was brought to $6,000. [ 12 ] Plaintiff has proven his damages. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS Plaintiff’s application; ORDERS Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff $6,000 with interest and the additional indemnity set forth in

section 1619 C.c.Q. from the date of the present judgment because of the amendment during the audience, with costs of $100 representing the stamp of the application. __________________________________ ERIC DUFOUR, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: August 8, 2017