2016 QCCQ 4811, 2016 QCCQ 4811

Lattanzio c. Emanuele 2016 QCCQ 4811 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-143974-147 DATE: May 17, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ LUCIANO LATTANZIO Plaintiff v. CALOGERO EMANUELE and LES CONSTRUCTIONS LÉONARDO INC.

Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff is suing defendants, in damages, following the flooding of his basement. [ 2 ] Plaintiff claims that defendants failed to complete and/or adequately execute the work for which their services were retained. [ 3 ] The parties appeared before the honourable Martine L. Tremblay, on December 14, 2015, who granted a postponement, as neither party was ready to proceed.

The minutes of the hearing read, in part, as follows: "10 h 43 - Le Tribunal s’adresse à M. Calogero. Le Tribunal s’adresse aux parties. Échange entre le Tribunal et les parties. Les défendeurs demandent une remise puisqu’ils n’ont reçu l’avis de convocation que vendredi de sorte qu’ils n’ont pas eu le temps de se préparer adéquatement.

Après discussion avec les parties, et considérant qu’une analyse rapide de la situation permet au Tribunal de constater que le demandeur aura besoin de faire entendre des témoins tant sur l’étendue des travaux effectués que sur la nécessité de ces travaux à la lumière de ceux qui avaient été confiés aux défendeurs, il est approprié d’accueillir la demande de remise. Le Tribunal offre aux parties d’utiliser leur temps de ce matin pour voir s’il est possible de régler cette affaire hors cour et avec leur accord, tente de les concilier, mais sans succès.

Procédant par la suite à une gestion de l’instance, il est convenu par les parties :

a) que le demandeur transmettrait aux défendeurs une réimpression des photos produites sous la cote P-4 avant la fin janvier 2016.

b) Les défendeurs transmettront une copie des photos et de tout autre document qu’ils entendent utiliser au procès au demandeur avant la fin de janvier 2016.

c) Les défendeurs auront deux témoins (M. Calogero Emanuele, M. Léonardo Emanuele et le plâtrier).

d) Le demandeur aura (Tony, Daniel Clément – de Burex, Anna Lattanzio et Stéphanie Lattanzio.)

Après consultation avec la maître des rôles, la cause est reportée au 4 avril 2016, pour une demi-journée dans une salle à être déterminée. Le Tribunal se dessaisit du dossier." [ 4 ] The parties appeared before the undersigned, on April 4, 2016. Witness Daniel Clément was not present, as plaintiff wrote to the Court clerk, on March 1, 2016, stating: "I want to cancel the sepena for the Company Burex Inc. For Mr.

Daniel Clément." (sic) This was unfortunate, as his presence was necessary to establish many of plaintiff's allegations. [ 5 ] Plaintiff had the burden of proof (articles 2803 and 2804 C.C.Q .). [ 6 ] Firstly, he failed to establish sufficient interest (article 85 NCCP ). No contract was filed, and the Court was unable to ascertain whether the alleged services contract intervened between plaintiff and defendant company or between plaintiff's insurer and defendant company. Not only was Daniel Clément absent, but no representative of the insurance company appeared either.

Furthermore, plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a "lien de droit" between himself and defendant Calogero Emanuele personally. [ 7 ] It is clear that plaintiff's insurer disbursed approximately $18,000.00 for repairs to plaintiff's property, after the flood in question. Approximately $9,000.00 was paid to defendant company and $9,000.00 to plaintiff directly. However, plaintiff presented no evidence to show if insurer ceded its rights to him. [ 8 ] Furthermore, plaintiff alleges that he had work done by a third party namely "M & O Design", to correct defendant company's work, for $8,778.34.

However, no witness from this company appeared, and plaintiff's testimony, as to what was done and what allegedly remains to be done, was nebulous and confusing. [ 9 ] Moreover, plaintiff did not establish, by a preponderance of evidence, how much he disbursed from his own pocket, if anything, and for what, over and above the insurance settlement he received, to correct defendant company's work. [ 10 ] Plaintiff is clearly unsatisfied with the work that was carried out. However, he did not fulfill his burden of proof on several fronts: interest, fault and damages. Had the hon.

Tremblay not already postponed the case to allow the parties to prepare adequately, the undersigned would have done so. Unfortunately, despite judge Tremblay's instructions, plaintiff was equally unprepared to present his case on April 4, 2016. [ 11 ] His recourse must therefore be denied. WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiff's claim, with legal costs of $157.00. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: April 4, 2016