2019 QCCQ 4121, 2019 QCCQ 4121

9278-9239 Québec inc. c. Fuel Truck inc. 2019 QCCQ 4121 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-156474-175 DATE: April 17, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ 9278-9239 QUÉBEC INC. and CORNELL WALTER Plaintiffs v. FUEL TRUCK INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ Parties and Proceedings [ 1 ] The Plaintiffs, 9278-9239 Quebec inc. (“ Quebec inc. ”) and Cornell Walter sue the Defendant Fuel Truck inc. (“ Fuel Truck ”) for a total of $ 12,000.00 in the context of the termination, on December 1, 2016 of a contract for services entitled « Truck Agreement » [1] . [ 2 ] This was an agreement pursuant to which 9278-9239 Quebec Inc., referred to as the “Lessor” provided to Fuel Truck, referred to as the “Lessee”, the services of a transport truck and a driver it employed, the latter being Mr.

Walter, the shareholder of 9278-9239 Quebec Inc. Mr. Walter is a party to the agreement, referred to as the “Surety”. [ 3 ] The Plaintiffs allege that, upon terminating the contract, Fuel Truck inc. failed to pay the outstanding amounts owed for transport services in the amount of $ 6,500.00 and that it also failed to reimburse to 9278-9239 Quebec Inc. an amount of $ 2,500.00 belonging to 9278-9239 Quebec Inc. held in a contingency fund by Fuel Truck Inc. [ 4 ] Mr.

Walter also claims damages in the amount of $ 3,000 for his moral prejudice because of the manner in which Fuel Truck Inc. terminated the agreement, without giving the required notice of 15 days and withholding amounts owed to his corporation and because of the criminal complaint made against him, which resulted in an acquittal. [ 5 ] Fuel Truck asserts that it was entitled to resiliate the contract for cause because of siphoning of fuel by Mr. Walter, for which 9278-9239 Quebec inc. would be liable. The allegation made is that Mr.

Walter siphoned fuel from other trucks parked on Fuel Truck’s premises into Québec Inc.’s truck. [ 6 ] Fuel Truck makes a cross-claim for $ 14,012.77 based on its estimate of the amount of fuel Mr.

Walter misappropriated in this manner from other trucks on its premises, throughout the period of the Truck Agreement, since its inception on January 18, 2016. [ 7 ] Fuel Truck explained at the hearing that it sought compensation between this cross claim of $ 14,012.77 and the amount of $ 6,500.00 it owes to 9278-9239 Quebec inc. for services rendered as well as the contingency fund amount, for a total of $ 9,000.00. [ 8 ] Thus, 9278-9239 Quebec inc. and Mr.

Walter would owe Fuel Truck the difference of $ 5,012.77. [ 9 ] Fuel Truck contests the claim for moral damages, alleging that it did commit any fault in terminating the Truck Agreement for cause, and denying any liability with respect to the criminal proceedings that followed its complaint to the police. [ 10 ] In response to the contestation and cross-claim, Mr.

Walter denies that he siphoned any fuel as alleged by Fuel Truck. [ 11 ] What’s more, he asserts that he obtained, by purchasing it, all of the fuel he required to perform the transport services provided for in the agreement and that the loss claimed by Fuel Truck is therefore unsubstantiated through the calculations submitted. [ 12 ] Finally, he asserts that Fuel Truck cannot sue on behalf of owners of trucks for their alleged loss of fuel through siphoning. It would be up to each such owner to bring the claim in its own name.

Issues [ 13 ] The outcome of the case depends upon the resolution of the following issues: 1. Has Fuel Truck demonstrated that:

a) it suffered a loss relating to siphoned fuel?

b) If so, was this loss caused by Mr. Walter siphoning the fuel? 2. If so, what is the amount of this loss and can it be compensated against the payments owed to Québec inc.? 3. Was Fuel Truck at fault:

a) for the manner in which it terminated the Truck Agreement and withheld funds?

b) in making the complaint to the police? 4. If so, what prejudice, if any, did Mr. Walter suffer as a result of these faults? Facts and evidence [ 14 ] Mr. Walter hauled loads, for the benefit of Fuel Truck, without incident, from the beginning of the contractual relationship through to the month of November 2016. [ 15 ] Fuel Truck’s representative at the hearing, Mrs. Nadia Damiani testified that at a certain point in time, complaints were received about fuel missing from trucks owned and operated by drivers who operated in the same way as Mr. Walter.

Fuel Truck suspected that someone had been siphoning fuel. [ 16 ] The owner of one of these trucks took the initiative of installing video cameras in his vehicle and used these cameras to make video recordings when the truck was parked in Fuel Truck’s lot. [ 17 ] Mrs. Damiani provided the Court with two sequences of video allegedly taken in November 2016. Both Mrs. Damiani and Mr. Walter were present when the Court viewed the videos and heard testimony in connection with them. The video files seem to be fragments taken from an automated system that is activated by movement.

There are two camera views, one that is a forward looking through the front windshield, the other is downward from the passenger side of the cab toward the ground. [ 18 ] Mrs. Damiani testified that, at a meeting to which he was summoned by Fuel Truck’s management, Mr. Walter was shown the video clip 2016-11-20_4-49-24 PM-cam 2(pump).asf (caméra latérale). This video shows an individual approaching the right side of the owner’s truck. It was reported to her that Mr.

Walter, when viewing that clip, a, admitted it was him, but that he denied it was him when the video continued, [2] the siphoning of fuel by what appears to be the same person. She was not present, but Fuel Truck’s legal counsel was. [ 19 ] The Court heard testimony of Maître Sandra Ng Foyan, legal counsel for Fuel Truck since the end of August 2016. Maître Ng Foyan was present at the meeting held December 1 2016, with George Perdikis, Truck Operations Manager, Vanessa Gray, Human Resources Director and Mr. Walter. She thinks that Mr. Perdikis and Mrs. Gray called the meeting.

Her involvement in the meeting was to be a witness to the discussion about videos relating to alleged fuel theft. [ 20 ] She estimates that the meeting lasted about half an hour. [ 21 ] She testifies that the first question asked by Mr. Perdikis was about whether Mr. Walter knew anything about fuel theft. Mr. Walter answered in the negative. The video viewing of one folder started. When a person was visible, Mr. Walter said, “that’s me”. When the video showed a person using pipes, he was asked whether. He answered in the negative. [ 22 ] Maître Ng Foyan recalls Mr. Perdikis asking whether Mr.

Walter recognised the truck in the video; he answered that it was a Kenworth. She is referring to fragments taken through the front view showing a white track passing in front of the camera and backing in to park on the passenger side of the owner’s truck. Mr. Perdikis then mentioned that Mr. Walter was the only driver having a Kenworth, to which he answered in the affirmative. Perdikis asked again if Mr. Walter recognized the person in the video and he answered in the negative. [ 23 ] She was present when the contract was “severed”. Both Mr. Perdikis and Ms. Gray spoke explaining the reason for the severance.

The letter of termination, was presented and signed [3] . When Mr. Walter asked what was the next step, Mr. Perdikis said that there was a police investigation and gave the coordinates of the detective. Mr. Walter was advised that he could seek legal representation in that connection. Then the meeting ended. [ 24 ] There is a second sequence of videos, apparently taken from the same truck on November 23, 2016, where a small vehicle is seen coming and going. Mrs. Damiani asserts that this is Mr. Walter’s personal automobile, a Volkswagen Golf. Then there is a view of a white truck parking.

The video is taken in what appears to be night conditions. [ 25 ] Maître Ng Foyan was prompted by a leading question suggested by Mrs. Damiani as to whether the group at the meeting viewed a video showing a car. This caused her to recall that there was a second video, taken during daylight, showing a light grey car, a person stepping out of the car wearing, perhaps, a red cap and that when asked, Mr. Walter did not recognize the person.

[ 26 ] In the videos provided to the Court there are two clips taken during daylight conditions. An individual wearing a red cap is walking in front of the owner’s truck. He is wearing a red cap. There is no car in these two clips. [ 27 ] In the videos taken during dark conditions, there is no video of the car where someone gets out of the car. [ 28 ] Certain of the videos were then reviewed with the witness and she corrected her testimony about them. [ 29 ] She could not recognize Mr.

Walter on any of these videos, because she did not know him, and the facial features were not distinguishable, but she believes that the general demeanour of the person in both videos is the same person, but it is only an impression. She did not identify Mr. Walter. [ 30 ] After this meeting took place, and having developed the conviction that Mr. Walter was responsible for siphoning fuel, Mrs. Damiani computed the probable use of fuel by Mr. Walter with reference the mileage he had driven for Fuel Truck over the period of the Truck Agreement.

She deducted the fuel that Québec inc. purchased, legitimately, using the card provided by Fuel Truck and compiled the claim for the rest of the fuel allegedly siphoned by Mr. Walter, on the assumption that he did not purchase this amount of fuel, he siphoned it. [ 31 ] In answer to this computation, Mr. Walter provided documentary evidence of the fuel purchases made throughout the period of the Truck Agreement.

In addition to these purchases, he stated in this testimony that he had made some undocumented purchases at highly discounted prices from fuel stations in the Mohawk territory over which he often travelled on his itinerary. The amount of fuel purchases that are documented on various credit cards held by Mr. Walter is substantial, but less than the amounts that Mrs. Damiani calculates as his probable use of fuel. [ 32 ] Mrs. Damiani did not produce a study of the amount of fuel allegedly siphoned.

She asserts that, if Fuel Truck is successful in the cross-claim, it will obtain information from truck owners and make reimbursements to them based on this information. Mrs. Damiani said she was taken by surprise at the hearing, because the Court allowed Mr. Walter to make his evidence of his fuel purchases through documents he had produced in the record but which she had not obtained from the clerk. Because of this procedural glitch, the Court allowed Mrs. Damiani to respond in writing after the hearing. [ 33 ] Because of its conviction that Mr.

Walter had committed a crime by siphoning fuel, Fuel Truck made a complaint to the police. This led to the police putting an investigation file before the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions who authorised a prosecution under

section 334

b) ii of the Criminal Code in the Municipal Court of Montreal. [ 34 ] Mr. Walter objected to the authenticity of the video sequences shown, pointing out that the video seems to be spliced together. He denies that the video is of him, and denies that he admitted that it was him when he was confronted during the meeting of November 2016. In connection with the second video, he does not recognize the car as being his Volkswagen. [ 35 ] As to the meeting of December 1, which he said only lasted about 15 minutes he admits that he was asked whether he knows about fuel theft and he said no.

He was shown only one video, taking during a rainy night. He denies having admitted at any time during the meeting that the person shown in the video is him. He stated that he would not have been wearing running shoes, because the rules provide for safety shoes. [ 36 ] He states that he did not recognise the truck as being specifically a Kenworth, for him it is just a white truck, like all the other trucks coming and going in the yard.

He thinks that the Kenworth and other makes of this class of truck look very similar, and all that the trucks, whether owed by Fuel Truck or by drivers, are painted white and have the same markings. [ 37 ] The court heard contradictory evidence about access to the yard where Fuel Truck’s service providers park their trucks. Fuel Truck asserts that only drivers having the code can enter, while Mr. Walter tried to establish that the gate to the area is often left open. Analysis [ 38 ] Turning to the questions posed in the “Issues”

section above. 1. Has Fuel Truck demonstrated that:

a) it suffered a loss relating to siphoned fuel? [ 39 ] This issue of Fuel Truck’s standing is complex. Fuel Truck cannot make claims for losses suffered by a third-party owner/operator. It does not have an assignment of the rights of any such owners nor is it subrogated in these rights.

The concept that Fuel Truck would collect on behalf of these owners and then distribute the gains among the claimants is an interesting one, but it does not work within the litigation framework of this case: Fuel Truck does not have a legal interest in the claims of these third parties. [ 40 ] Fuel Truck would have suffered a loss if its fuel were siphoned from one of its own trucks. This is hypothetical, because no specific evidence on the point was tendered. The general loss of credibility or of good relations between Fuel Truck and its drivers is a possible prejudice, but it is not alleged here.

Fuel Truck asserts that some siphoning may have taken place in respect of its own trucks, but did not attempt to prove this. In effect, Fuel Truck is attempting to sue for a global amount representing the probable use of fuel by Mr. Walter for which he does not have proof of purchase, regardless of who suffered the loss. [ 41 ] The evidence of quantum is ineffective, because it is based on the premise that Mr. Walter used only siphoned fuel, and that all of that fuel was siphoned on Fuel Truck’s premises. No attempt is made to prove how much fuel was siphoned.

[ 42 ] This involves an enormous amount of conjecture, and depends upon the Court discounting entirely Mr. Walter’s documentary evidence of his fuel purchases and his testimony to the effect that he also purchased fuel on a cash basis without receipts from Mohawks who run small independent fuel stations on their territory. In conclusion on this point, Fuel Truck has not demonstrated that it suffered a loss.

b) Has Fuel Truck demonstrated that this loss was caused by Mr. Walter syphoning the fuel? [ 43 ] It is appropriate to consider the case made against the Plaintiffs on this issue, as it has a bearing on the other issues in the case, for example the question whether Fuel Truck was at fault in the termination of the Truck Agreement without providing the required 15-day notice. [ 44 ] It must be borne in mind that Fuel Truck, alleging a fault that would have the effect of altering the legal relationship it has with the Plaintiffs, has the burden of proof. [ 45 ] The case is essentially circumstantial.

Fuel Truck’s management, according to Mrs. Damiani, is convinced that there must have been siphoning going on because it got complaints. The person they see on the video siphoning fuel looks to them like Mr. Walter. They also assert that they have an admission from him that he is the person on the video. On that basis and by eliminating other possibilities, they gained the conviction that he was the culprit. They gave the information they had to the police. [ 46 ] Does the evidence establish, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr.

Walter siphoned fuel from a truck on Fuel Truck’s premises? [ 47 ] The evidence of the identity of Mr. Walter as the person who can be seen on the videos in insufficient. While Mrs. Damiani believes it is him, she is unable to point to any characteristic of the video that is typical of him, except the clothing, running shoes, a hoody and a jacket. [ 48 ] The resolution of the videos is so poor, especially in the limited light of a rainy night condition, that it is really not possible to say much about the appearance of the facial features of the individual.

It looks as if the person is wearing a beard and mustache, but the resolution in the image is so poor that it could simply be a question of shadows. Mr. Walter denies having worn at any time a beard or moustache. He also points out that he wore safety boots while on the premises, not sneakers. [ 49 ] More fundamentally, the video is not authenticated, because the person who set up the cameras in his truck no longer works for Fuel Truck and was not called as a witness. [ 50 ] Because the videos are excerpts, it is not possible to establish their dates, nor that the sequences are accurately juxtaposed.

The videos are not admissible evidence. [ 51 ] While the small automobile shown in some of the videos is a hatchback. It cannot be identified as a Volkswagen, as opposed to other similar cars. The quality of the image is so poor that the colour of the vehicle is indeterminable, though it is light, not dark. [ 52 ] It is impossible for Mr. Walter to adequately meet the case, because it is not possible to establish the dates of the videos. This is very prejudicial to him in the litigation context.

The probative value of the video evidence is extremely weak as proof of the identity of the person or persons shown and the evidence is not admissible because its authenticity was not established. [ 53 ] The testimony of the in-house counsel concerning the meeting raises several problems. [ 54 ] To some extent, Maître Ng Foyan’s testimony tends to confirm Mr. Walter’s assertion that only one video sequence, taken on a rainy night, was shown because, when she testified spontaneously, she only mentioned that part of the videos. It was only when a leading question was put to her by Mrs.

Damiani that she remembered the daylight video. Her recollection of that video was inaccurate. She may have viewed it with her colleagues before or after the meeting, as opposed to during the meeting. [ 55 ] She did not take notes or otherwise record the event. Her testimony is almost similar to the hearsay evidence offered by Mrs. Damiani. This suggests that the matter was discussed between them prior to the trial and the narrative is based on a reconstruction of the event.

The other persons present at the meeting, whose testimony would have been crucial to establish the identification, and to confirm the alleged admission, did not come to the trial, presumably because they wished to rely on their lawyer as a witness. Thus their narratives were not subjected to a comparison one with the other to test their coherence.

The only inference that can be drawn is that such a comparison would have been detrimental to Fuel Truck’s case. [ 56 ] While the Court does not doubt the honesty and sincerity of Maître Ng Foyan, she is recalling, without notes, a meeting that took place approximately two years earlier. The parts that she is recalling, versus the parts that are a consensus formed by speaking to the other participants, all of whom are interested parties, is impossible to ascertain just like the identity of the person on the video(

s) which cannot be established. [ 57 ] The idea that Mr. Walter would have admitted at the meeting his identity in the video seems unlikely. Being invited to a meeting with senior management to talk about alleged theft of fuel, he would have not made such an admission if he was indeed the person on the video and he knew that it would show him involved in illegal activity. [ 58 ] It is not possible to establish, on the basis of Maître Ng Foyan’s testimony, which video was playing when Mr. Walter would have admitted it was him. It was not a video showing syphoning as such.

When was it taken? [ 59 ] Maître Ng Foyan perceived him to say that he was the person on the video. Perhaps he meant that the person looked like him. Perhaps he said “that’s me” with the intonation of a question. Perhaps it was with sarcasm. It is largely a question of perception. [ 60 ] Mr. Walter’s grasp of English and his speaking skills in Engish are limited. Throughout the day, the Court had to repeat questions because he did not understand them, and often had difficulty in understanding his answers, asking him to repeat them. A report of what

he said at the meeting does not carry a significant probative value because he did not necessarily understand the question, nor was his answer, if he gave one, necessarily interpreted in the manner he intended. [ 61 ] Just as Maître Ng Foyen’s testimony about which videos were shown at the meeting is not very probative, her testimony about obtaining incriminating evidence from him is not very reliable either, despite her apparent sincerity. [ 62 ] The presumptive evidence that Fuel Truck wishes to provide to eliminate the possibility that someone else was siphoning gas is that the truck in the videos parked beside the owner’s truck is a white Kenworth with Fuel Truck’s logo and that only Mr.

Walter drives a Kenworth for Fuel Truck. There was no attempt to prove this, other than Mrs. Damiani’s testimony. [ 63 ] Fuel Truck’s logo would not be hard to paint onto any white Kenworth. [ 64 ] Could another person, who does not work for Fuel Truck, and who wishes to siphon gas have access to the yard, assuming a locked gate ? Mrs. Damiani asserts that the gate is closed and locked after hours. [ 65 ] A warehouse employee presents himself each morning and inspects the yard. At 5:00 p.m. he closes the gate.

Only those who know the code can have entry without the help of this employee. [ 66 ] Apart from the code, there is no security device, human or automated, that would restrict access to the yard. Could strangers know the code? They could, indeed, if a dishonest person among the drivers who have access to the yard gave it to them. [ 67 ] Or, the gatekeeper could have given the code, innocently or not, to an unauthorized person. [ 68 ] Mr. Walter gave the example of non Fuel Truck drivers, for legitimate reasons, having access to the yard by having the code.

The examples he gives are not compelling, but they underscore the very limited security in effect at the Fuel Truck yard. Despite Mrs. Damiani’s conviction that the yard is secure, objectively, this security cannot be demonstrated if it depends only upon a code, which many persons know and could share for legitimate or illegitimate reasons with others. [ 69 ] This evidence of a rather rudimentary security system would not establish Mr. Walter’s innocence on the balance of probabilities, if he had the burden of proof. But he does not.

The burden of proof is on Fuel Truck. [ 70 ] The Court concludes that it is possible that Mr. Walter committed a theft of fuel. The evidence provides the possibility that it was Mr. Walter, but it does not establish the probability that it was Mr Walter. 2. What is the amount of this loss and can it be compensated against the payments owed to Québec Inc.? [ 71 ] Although Mrs. Damiani said that the case was more a question of principle than of money, she made a valiant effort to establish presumptive evidence of a loss of $ 14,791.11. Her computation is based on the presumption that Mr.

Walter relied exclusively, except for some very small purchases on Fuel Truck’s account, on siphoned gas, from Fuel Truck’s premises. As alluded to above, Fuel Truck would only have standing in respect of fuel siphoned from its own trucks, and there is no evidence that this occurred. [ 72 ] The computation is also based on the premise that the average gas mileage provided by the computer, placed on board by Fuel Truck, based on Mr.

Walter’s driving history over the period, is accurate. [ 73 ] It has not been demonstrated that the truck’s computer gives the actual use of gas, as opposed to a presumed use based on speed and distance. The effect of the weight of the load is also not established. Mrs. Damiani testified that the computer was placed on the truck to monitor times of driving and speed, both of which are regulated by law, but there is no suggestion that the use of fuel is the object of the exercise. [ 74 ] Mr.

Walter argues, plausibly, that the weight of the load would also affect fuel consumption and that he mostly hauled light loads at fairly low speeds. [ 75 ] The amount spent on fuel that he can prove he purchased is less than what he might have needed to run the truck, if Mrs. Damiani’s figures are conclusive but this does not fulfill Fuel Truck’s burden of proof on quantum. The Court accepts, not without a certain cynicism, that he purchased discounted fuel on the Mohawk territory, a questionable practice, but one that no doubt exists. [ 76 ] The burden of proof lies upon Fuel Truck as Cross Plaintiff.

It has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that, if there was syphoning done by Mr. Walter, it resulted in a loss of the magnitude of that claimed, or any other accurate number, simply because it does not have the means of doing so. Fuel Truck suspected that such a loss existed, but it was not legitimate for it to hold back funds that were owed to Quebec inc because of a claim that could not be liquidated and substantiated. 3. Was Fuel Truck Inc. at fault:

a) for the manner in which it terminated the Truck Agreement and withheld funds

b) In making the complaint made to the police? 4. If so, what prejudice, if any, did Mr. Walter suffer as a result of these faults? [ 77 ] The answer to question 3

a) is therefore in the affirmative. The contract should have been terminated with the 15-day notice stipulated in the agreement. It is understandable that Fuel Truck preferred to end the contract on December 2, 2016, because it had lost confidence in the Plaintiffs, but it should have offered the equivalent of two weeks’ notice of termination. But in answer to question 4, concerning prejudice, the Plaintiffs mitigated their financial damages by finding other work in the month of December.

It was a month that was, in all probability, at least as productive as the work done for Fuel Truck, because the figures show substantial fuel purchases, $1,405.00 in the first two weeks of December, slightly more than the monthly average as calculated by Fuel Truck. Given this

mitigation, the Court will not arbitrate any amount of damages to Québec inc. for the failure to provide the two-week notice provided in the Truck Agreement. [ 78 ] There should however be moral damages for the way in which Mr. Walter’s situation was prejudiced by the precipitous termination of the agreement.

Fuel Truck did not act responsibly toward him when it held back funds that were clearly owed to Quebec inc. on which he relied for his subsistence, on the basis of a claim that was not liquid and exigible and based more on a moral conviction than on probative evidence. [ 79 ] It needlessly caused stress and anxiety at a time of year when family pressures can be at their highest. An amount of $1,000.00 is appropriate as compensation for this moral prejudice. [ 80 ] On question 3 b), no liability was incurred by Fuel Truck in making a complaint to the police about the alleged theft.

It gave the police the evidence it had, and the rest of the matter was out of its hands. The decision about the depth of the investigation, and the decision to remit the evidence and a police report to the Crown, was that of the police authorities alone. It was a matter over which Fuel Truck had no control or even influence.

The decision to bring the matter as a criminal charge was that of the Crown, for whose actions the original complainant in this case has no liability. [ 81 ] The case was, as can be seen by the email written by the attorney on the case for the DCPP at the Montreal Municipal Court, fraught with difficulties. The proper witnesses were not present on the trial date. The Crown declared it had no evidence to offer when a postponement was refused, according to the lawyer, because Mr.

Walter should not be expected to come back from his home country again for the trial. (This is probably a misunderstanding on the part of the Crown, because Mr. Walter spends a lot of time in his home country, but also spends a lot of time here.) The Court acquitted Mr. Walter. [ 82 ] Of note is the absence of the author of the video evidence and of witnesses from Fuel Truck who could have substantiated the case on the rest of the evidence, most of which was circumstantial. The three persons present at the meeting were not among the witnesses who had been summoned.

It is hard to think how the Crown could have proved its case, even if it had gotten a postponement, but this is not the point. The point is that Fuel Truck is not responsible for the inconvenience and expense that Mr. Walter was put to in the

summary conviction procedure that led to the acquittal, because it had no control or influence over the process. BY THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ claim, in part; CONDEMNS the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff 9278-9239 Quebec inc. the amount of $ 9,000.00 together with interest at the legal rate of 5% per annum plus the additional indemnity provided by

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec , calculated from December 2, 2016; CONDEMNS the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff Walter Cornell the amount of $ 1,000.00 together with interest at the legal rate of 5% per annum plus the additional indemnity provided by

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec , calculated from December 2, 2016; DISMISSES the cross demand; WITH legal costs in favour of the Plaintiffs. __________________________________ David L. Cameron, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: September 25, 2018 Written submissions exchanged up to December 18, 2018.