2013 QCCQ 5727, 2013 QCCQ 5727

Bergeron Gaudreau, s.e.n.c. c. Niculescu 2013 QCCQ 5727 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF HULL TOWN OF GATINEAU Civil Division No: 550-32-019463-113 DATE: May 24, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ANDRÉ CLOUTIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ BERGERON GAUDREAU, S.E.N.C. , 167 Notre-Dame-de-l'Ile, Gatineau, QC, J8X 3T3 Plaintiff v.

DANUT NICULESCU , […] Drive, Nepean, ON, […] Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff is claiming $3192.94 from the defendant for unpaid professional fees . [ 2 ] The defendant contested that claim , alleging that the fees claimed are grossly exaggerated, given that, during the period when Mtre.

Gaudreau represented him, no progress whatsoever was made in his divorce case and no concrete result was achieved, even though the fees billed by the plaintiff partnership amounted to $5000. [ 3 ] Mr. Niculescu’s complaints against Mtre. Gaudreau are more extensively listed in an email dated May 19, 2011, which was sent in response to an email from Mtre. Gaudreau dated January 12, 2011. Thus, more than four months elapsed between the sending of the contested bill of costs and the defendant’s virulent response.

That time period no doubt accounts for the slow progress in the defendant ’s case. [ 4 ] The uncontradicted evidence shows that, at the defendant’s request, his attorney could only contact him by email. The exchange of written documents slowed down communication between the parties.

Examination of the emails sent between the attorney and the defendant in December 2011 shows to what point the negotiation of an agreement on the partition of the property and debts between the defendant and his spouse was an arduous exercise when the attorney and the client communicated in writing. [ 5 ] In an email dated December 14, 2011, Mtre.

Gaudreau sought his client’s consent on certain points of the future agreement and asked for documents justifying his requests, i.e. documents indicating the latest balance, in principal and interest, of the debts to be shared between the spouses. [ 6 ] His client’s response on the same day was that the debts had not changed since the previous summer, meaning that the attorney already had the documents asked for. Yet, is it realistic to believe that, of a long list of debts, there was no interest currently accruing on any of them?

Rather, is it not possible that the defendant did not understand the object of his attorney’s request? [ 7 ] In the same email, the defendant firmly opposed another postponement of his case despite the fact that, three days before the scheduled hearing, the agreement on corollary relief still had not been signed, or even definitively concluded between the parties, and that no defence had been filed in the case in order to avoid delaying the outcome, given that the parties were on their way to concluding an agreement on corollary relief. [ 8 ] In these circumstances, the client’s insistence on proceeding, without any agreement having been signed or defence filed, shows that he did not understand what his position was from the standpoint of the judicial proceedings.

[ 9 ] The evidence heard at the hearing convinces me that the dissatisfaction with Mtre. Gaudreau expressed by Mr. Niculescu and the reasons invoked in the latter’s contestation basically stem from a lack of communication between the parties and the defendant’s lack of understanding. Such factors are not the attorney’s fault, but stem rather from the method of communication imposed by the defendant himself. [ 10 ] Since Mtre.

Gaudreau’s services were retained on an hourly basis and since he cannot be held responsible for the communication problems with his client or the delays in the progress of the defendant’s case, the claim will be upheld and the contestation dismissed. THEREFORE, THE COURT: CONDEMNS Danut Niculescu to pay Bergeron Gaudreau S.E.N.C. $3192.94 with interest at the legal rate , but without any additional indemnity, given the current rates of interest, as of the summons; CONDEMNS the defendant to pay costs set at $129. __________________________________ ANDRÉ CLOUTIER J.C.Q. Date of hearing: April 23, 2013