2012 QCCQ 3471, 2012 QCCQ 3471

Barakat c. Reid 2012 QCCQ 3471 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL « Civil Division» No: 500-32-119609-099 DATE: May 2, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DANIEL DORTÉLUS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ EMILE JEAN BARAKAT Plaintiff v.

DORREL REID Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr Barakat is claiming from Mrs Reid $3,500 representing a balance of $1,500 owed for legal services rendered from January 2008 to January 2009. At the hearing, plaintiff withdraws his claim of $2,000 for damages. THE ISSUES [ 2 ] This case raises the following issues: 1) Are the fees claimed due by the circumstances of this case are proportionate to services rendered?

Are the fees claimed covered by the contract? 2) If not, what is the appropriate amount for the balance owed?

THE FACTS [ 3 ] In January 2008, Mrs Reid retained Mr Barakat's services to represent her in order to secure the acquisition of a permanent resident visa under the family class category for her husband. [ 4 ] Mr Barakat and Mrs Reid signed a written mandate setting Mr Barakat's global fees at $3,000 $, to be paid as follows: • $1,500 to open the file and prepare the application for submission; • $1,500 to pay once the permanent resident visa is approved in principal. [ 5 ] It is into evidence that Mrs Reid paid the first $1,500 and that Mr Barakat prepared the application and submitted the required documents to Quebec government and obtained the deliverance of a certificate of selection for Mrs Reid's Husband in august 2008.

The application for sponsorship was also prepared and submitted by Mr Barakat, to the Canadian Immigration office. [ 6 ] On January 22, 2009, Mr Barakat received a fax from the Canadian High Commission in Jamaica advising him that Residence Document and Immigration Visa were issued to Mrs Reid's husband. [ 7 ] On February 6, 2009, Mr Barakat send a letter of demand to Mrs Reid requesting the payment of the second payment of $1,500, as per their contract of January 2008. [ 8 ] In support of his claim, Mr Barakat contends that the defendant is in default of complying with the contract, and that she is acting in bad faith by refusing after the visa was issued to pay the balance of $1,500 due of the global amount of $3,000 agreed upon. [ 9 ] Mr Barakat further contends that, the reasons raised by Mrs Read to contest his claim are unfounded; they were dealt with

by the office of the Syndic of the Quebec Bar following a complaint she filed against him in August 2009 contesting the same fees. THE REASONS [ 10 ] For the following reasons, these contentions are founded. [ 11 ] It appears from the decision of the Syndic of the Quebec Bar (Exhibit P-3) that in effect, Mrs Read is raising before this Court the same reproaches and arguments she raised in her complaint which was dismissed. In the decision dismissing her complaint, the Syndic wrote: Furthermore, after reviewing M e Barakat's description of his work in this case, we find nothing unreasonable regarding sa i d fees.

Also, all your other reproaches against M e Barakat do not reveal any breach of his Code of Ethics . […] The fact that a lawyer uses support staff in the course of his legal practice is not in any way a violation of your privacy. The practice of law involves in almost all cases the use of such support staff and the lawyers' Code of Ethics specifically stipulates that said support staff is bound by the lawyer's oath of secrecy. Also, the fact that even after discovering that M e Barakat was using support staff in your case you did not cancel his mandate would tend to show that you have accepted that fact.

In spousal sponsorship cases, the amount of personal details requested might seem exaggerated or even invasive at times, nevertheless. These are the rules of the game as they have been set by the immigration authorities. In that same line of thought, the fact that a lawyer's office may seem to be asking similar questions from trine to time is very often in order to complete the necessary information and/or to ensure is accuracy.

After reviewing the different stages of your husband sponsorship until its conclusion, we find nothing unreasonable regarding the delays incurred, Considering that there was noting unreasonable or unusual with regards to delays, we cannot find that the lack of communications between M e Barakat and the Canadian Embassy in Trinidad was a violation of his Code of Ethics.

The undersigned can assure you from his own professional experiences, that considering the normal delays incurred in your file, that the Canadian Embassy would most probably not have responded to a request for an update by the lawyer and/or his clients. […] [ 12 ] In determining fees, an advocate must in particular, take into account, his experience; the time devoted to the matter; the difficulty of the question involved; the importance of the matter; the responsibility assumed; the performance of unusual services or services requiring exceptional competence or celerity; the result obtained [1] . [ 13 ] The Court shares the finding of the Syndic that the fees are reasonable as they are warranted by the circumstances and correspond to the services rendered, and they are covered by the contract signed by the parties. [ 14 ] The Court takes into consideration that Mr Barakat took step to be assured that his client is informed of the approximate and foreseeable cost of his services by preparing a written contract, which was remitted to the client to take home with her and return for finalisation [2] . [ 15 ] There is sufficient evidence that Mr Barakat fulfilled his entire obligation according to the contract and the C ode of Ethics for the members of the Bar [3] .

Consequently, he is entitled to the sum of $1,500. [ 16 ] The Court finds that Mrs Reid failed to demonstrate that the amount charged in legal fees in this case is neither fair nor reasonable; that it is not justified by the circumstances nor proportionate to services rendered, nor the result obtained; that her right to be informed as to the approximate and foreseeable cost of services rendered was not complied with. [ 17 ] The evidence leads the Court to conclude that the contestation is unfounded. Consequently, it is dismissed. The cross demand of $2,900 which is based on the same contentions is also dismissed.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : CONDEMNS Defendant Dorrel Reid to pay to Plaintiff Emile Jean Barakat the amount of $1,500 CDN with interest at the rate of 5 % and additional indemnity provided for in the Civil Code of Quebec thereon, to be calculated as of January 23, 2009, plus judicial fees of $29. __________________________________ DANIEL DORTÉLUS, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: April 23, 2012.