2019 QCCQ 2864, 2019 QCCQ 2864

Benoit c. Serrano 2019 QCCQ 2864 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-703903-171 DATE: May 9, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ KAYLEIGH BENOIT Plaintiff v.

MANUEL SERRANO Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Kayleigh Benoit claims $15,000 in damages from Manuel Serrano, which includes $3,500 due on a promissory note, $9,483 for moral damages caused by his alleged abusive conduct, and the balance for good or services which she paid on behalf of Mr. Serrano and which he never reimbursed. [ 2 ] Mr. Serrano admits owing $4,000 to Mrs.

Benoit, including $3,500 due on the promissory note and $500 for payments she made to cancel a cellphone contract. He denies owing anything more. Issues

a) Does Mr. Serrano owe Mrs. Benoit $500 in reimbursement of a loan for the purchase of a bicycle rack?

b) Did Mr. Serrano commit a fault during and upon the termination of his relationship with Mrs. Benoit?

c) If so, what damages were caused by Mr. Serrano’s fault? Context [ 3 ] Mrs. Benoit and Mr. Serrano were involved in a romantic relationship that ended in October 2017. [ 4 ] In May 2017, Mrs. Benoit lent Mr. Serrano $5,500. He used the funds to pay for enrollment in a massage therapist training program. [ 5 ] On August 18, 2017, Mr. Serrano signed a promissory note acknowledging that he borrowed $5,500 from Mrs. Benoit and agreed to repay this amount on demand without interest (“ Promissory Note ”). [1] [ 6 ] On September 23, 2017, Mr.

Serrano made a partial payment of $2,000 on the Promissory Note, leaving a balance due of $3,500. [2] [ 7 ] In October 2017, the relationship between Mrs. Benoit and Mr. Serrano came to an end. [ 8 ] On October 16, 2017, Mrs. Benoit sent Mr. Serrano a demand letter requesting the payment of $4,000, which included the payment of the balance owed on the Promissory Note ($3,500), amounts she paid on his behalf for the cancellation of a cellular telephone services contract, and the return of personal property. [3] [ 9 ] By letter dated November 7, 2017, Mr.

Serrano responded to the demand letter and admitted owing Mrs. Benoit $4,000, including the balance of $3,500 owed on the Promissory Note. [4] [ 10 ] Notwithstanding this admission, Mr. Serrano never repaid the loan or the other amounts claimed by Mrs. Benoit because he claims he lacks capacity to pay. [ 11 ] On December 13, 2017, Mrs. Benoit filed her claim in damages against Mr. Serrano. She now claims $15,000 in damages.

[ 12 ] In his contestation dated January 15, 2018, Mr. Serrano admits his in indebtedness to Mrs. Benoit and reiterates that he owes her $4,000 and nothing more. Analysis and Decision Preliminary Comments [ 13 ] Mrs. Benoit claims $15,000 in damages from Mr. Serrano, which amount is broken down as follows: i. Reimbursement of loan per Promissory Note: $3,500; ii. Cancellation of cellphone service contract: $377; iii. Bicycle: $300; iv. Loan for purchase of bicycle rack: $500; v. Cellphone: $200; vi. Non-pecuniary damages for mental abuse and emotional distress: $9,483; vii.

Pecuniary damages- psychologist consulting fees: $640. [ 14 ] Mr. Serrano admits owing $3,500 on the Promissory Note and $500 related to the cell phone. Indeed he writes in his November 7, 2017 letter : En répondant à votre demande j’admets que j’ai une dette de 4000$ qui inclut 3500$ du prêt d’école (laquelle je vous ai signé une reconnaissance de dette) et des objets mentionnés dans la lettre que vous m’avez envoyé, plus 500$ de l’annulation de mon réseau cellulaire. [5] [ 15 ] Accordingly, this portion of Mrs. Benoit’s claim will be granted for $4,000. [ 16 ] At the trial, Mrs.

Benoit withdrew her claim relating to the value of bicycle ($300) because Mr. Serrano returned it to her. [ 17 ] Other than items (vi) and (vii), the only outstanding issue is the claim for $500 in reimbursement of the loan made for the purchase of a bicycle rack. This will be addressed below.

a) Does Mr. Serrano owe Mrs. Benoit $500 in reimbursement of a loan for the purchase of a bicycle rack? [ 18 ] Mrs. Benoit testifies that while they were in a relationship, she lent $500 to Mr. Serrano so that he could purchase a bicycle rack. She adds that this loan was distinct from the loan witnessed by the Promissory Note. [ 19 ] Mr. Serrano does not deny receiving a loan of $500 from Mrs. Benoit which he used to purchase a bicycle rack.

However, he claims that this $500 was included in the $5,500 loan witnessed by the Promissory Note. [ 20 ] The Promissory Note does not mention the purpose of the loan. [ 21 ] Hence, the outcome of this first issue comes down to the credibility and reliability of each party’s testimony. [ 22 ] Mrs. Benoit was direct, forthright, clear and convincing in her testimony. [ 23 ] Mr. Serrano’s testimony was evasive and lacked any detail. [ 24 ] The Court prefers her version of the facts as it relates to this issue over Mr. Serrano’s. [ 25 ] Accordingly, the Court concludes that Mrs. Benoit lent Mr.

Serrano $500, over and above the $5,500 loan witnessed by the Promissory Note. [ 26 ] Given that Mr. Serrano has not repaid this amount, the Court will order him to pay it.

b) Did Mr. Serrano commit a fault during and upon the termination of his relationship with Mrs. Benoit? [ 27 ] Mrs. Benoit claims that Mr. Serrano was verbally abusive, demeaning and refused to assume his responsibilities. [ 28 ] Mrs. Benoit’s claim is based on

article 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec ( C.C.Q. ): 1457. Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another. Where he is endowed with reason and fails in this duty, he is liable for any injury he causes to another by such fault and is bound to make reparation for the injury, whether it be bodily, moral or material in nature.

He is also bound, in certain cases, to make reparation for injury caused to another by the act, omission or fault of another person or by the act of things in his custody. [ 29 ] Most romantic relationships have ups and downs. It is not every argument between two individuals who are in a romantic relationship that triggers civil liability. [ 30 ] Likewise, the person who ends the relationship does not necessarily commit a fault within the meaning of

article 1457 C.C.Q.

Ending a romantic relationship often brings pain and sadness to one or both of the individuals who have decided to part ways, but it does not mean that a fault has been committed. [ 31 ] Liability will only arise if the person’s conduct during the relationship or upon its termination is such that it can be considered abusive or shows an intent of injuring another, or is excessive and unreasonable. [6] Similarly, a fault will occur where the person’s conduct is not consistent with the conduct of a reasonable, prudent and diligent person placed in objectively similar circumstances. [7] [ 32 ] Mrs.

Benoit paints a portrait of a difficult relationship, one where she was the victim of verbal and mental abuse from Mr. Serrano. [ 33 ] For the reasons that follow, the Court believes that her depiction of the events is not contradicted by Mr. Serrano. [ 34 ] On at least three occasions during his testimony, the Court invited Mr. Serrano to address the examples of mental and verbal abuse described by Mrs. Benoit. Not once did he directly address these incidents. Rather he kept repeating that she would never take no for an answer. [ 35 ] Between the versions offered by Mrs. Benoit and Mr.

Serrano on the alleged abuse, the Court prefers Mrs. Benoit’s version. Although she found it understandably difficult to explain in open court the verbal abuse she experienced, her testimony was forthright, specific and convincing. She gave detailed examples of demeaning and disparaging conduct or comments made by Mr. Serrano. Her demeanor convinces the Court that what she testified to really happened. [ 36 ] On the other hand, Mr. Serrano either did not answer the Court’s questions or made a blanket denial of the abusive conduct Mrs. Benoit accused him of.

He never refuted the specific incidents of abusive conduct that Mrs. Benoit testified to, despite the Court’s invitation to do so. [ 37 ] Accordingly, the Court concludes that Mr. Serrano committed a fault towards Mrs. Benoit in the months leading up to the end of the relationship in October 2017. [ 38 ] The following are examples of his abusive, disparaging, and demeaning conduct towards Mrs. Benoit which constitutes a fault: 1. He would often tell Mrs. Benoit during class and within earshot of her classmates that she was a terrible person and had ruined his life; 2.

He would ostracize her and tell her that people did not like her; 3. He ridiculed her in front of her classmates; 4. At the end of the relationship, when Mrs. Benoit tried to recover the cellphone she had purchased for him, he unjustifiably called the police and ask them to intervene; 5. As per Mrs. Benoit’s mother’s uncontradicted testimony, Mr. Serrano told her more than once that her daughter was crazy; 6. The circumstances surrounding the pregnancy are particularly troubling. Mr. Serrano minimized them because he claims that when they went back to school in May 2017, both he and Mrs.

Benoit had agreed that they would concentrate on completing their massage therapist program and that she would not get pregnant. Ultimately, Mrs. Benoit did become pregnant. When she informed Mr. Serrano, he told her repeatedly that he wanted nothing to do with the child and would take no responsibility for it. This was a factor which contributed to Mrs. Benoit’s decision to interrupt the pregnancy.

He also violated her right to privacy by informing third parties ( i.e. , classmates and the school principal) without her consent about her pregnancy. [8] [ 39 ] While individually these incidents may not amount to faulty behavior under

article 1457 C.C.Q. , it is the cumulative and repetitive nature of this disparaging conduct that in the Court’s opinion constitutes a fault.

c) If so, what damages were caused by Mr. Serrano’s fault? [ 40 ] Mrs. Benoit claims $9,483 in non-pecuniary damages for emotional distress and moral damages. She also claims $640 in pecuniary damages representing the cost for obtaining psychological help. [9] [ 41 ] It is apparent from Mrs. Benoit’s testimony that Mr. Serrano’s conduct caused her injury, injury which she still suffers from today. [ 42 ] The Court is satisfied that the cost incurred for obtaining psychological help were directly caused by Mr. Serrano’s conduct. Accordingly, the expenses incurred by Mrs.

Benoit are compensable and the Court will order Mr. Serrano to reimburse her for the costs incurred for counselling. [ 43 ] As for the non-pecuniary damages claimed by Mrs. Benoit, these are inherently difficult to evaluate. Determining what constitutes a reasonable and just amount to compensate for moral damages is not an easy task. [10]

[ 44 ] That said, it is obvious from her testimony in Court that she suffered emotionally from Mr. Serrano’s conduct and behavior. While she has already attended a number of psychological counseling sessions, further counseling is needed and the damages award will enable her to obtain this counseling. [ 45 ] The Court believes that an award of $3,500 for the emotional distress and suffering caused by Mr. Serrano’s behavior is just and reasonable compensation. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 46 ] GRANTS in part Kayleigh Benoit’s action; [ 47 ] CONDEMNS Manuel Serrano to pay to Kayleigh Benoit $8,640 in damages with interest at the legal rate as well as the additional indemnity provided for by

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec , calculated from December 13, 2017; [ 48 ] WITH COSTS of $200 payable by Manuel Serrano to Kayleigh Benoit. __________________________________ ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: January 8, 2019