2014 QCCQ 155, 2014 QCCQ 155

Salvati c. Westmount (City of) 2014 QCCQ 155 COUR DU QUÉBEC « Division des petites créances » CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE MONTRÉAL « Chambre civile » N°: 500-32-128957-117 DATE : 22 janvier 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE DANIEL DORTÉLUS ______________________________________________________________________ VINCENT W. SALVATI Demandeur c.

THE CITY OF WESTMOUNT Défenderesse ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ LE LITIGE [ 1 ] Le demandeur poursuit la Ville de Westmount pour la somme de 2 398,59 $, à

titre de dommages pour les frais qu'ils ont engagés afin de faire reconnaître l'existence d'un droit acquis en ce qui concerne la distance de la façade de leur immeuble situé sur le chemin Côte-Saint-Antoine, par rapport à la distance de la rue. Ce droit acquis remonte à 1911, lors des travaux d'agrandissement de la rue par la Ville. [ 2 ] La Ville de Westmount conteste la réclamation, elle invoque le principe voulant qu'il appartienne à celui qui invoque un droit acquis d'en faire la preuve.

Elle soulève que le demandeur n'a pas établi l'existence d'une faute pour engager la responsabilité de la Ville pour le montant réclamé. [ 3 ] Le moyen soulevé par la Ville de Westmount est conforme à l'état du droit sur la question de droit acquis. Par ailleurs, le demandeur n'a pas démontré que la Ville de Westmount a manqué à une quelconque obligation ou que ses préposés ont commis une faute pour engager sa responsabilité pour le montant réclamé. En conséquence, le recours du demandeur doit échouer.

LES FAITS [ 4 ] Dans son témoignage, le demandeur reprend les faits tels qu'ils sont relatés dans la mise se demeure produite en preuve (Pièce P-2-1). Il est utile de reproduire ici un extrait de la mise en demeure datée du 4 août 2010, dans laquelle le demandeur indique : « We are writing to request payment by the City of Westmount for the attached invoice in the amount of $2,398.59 relating to our recent sale of 420 ch. Cote St. Antoine. The invoice is for work done by Me.

Isabelle Garneau, the Notary who represented the Buyer in the transaction It is unusual in and of itself that we as the Sellers would receive an invoice from the Buyer’s notary, and, it is probably more unusual that we are requesting reimbursement from Westmount. However, to put it simply, all of the work and fees resulted from incomplete and erroneous information furnished by the Urban Planning Department in response to our written request made on July 2, 2010 to confirm acquired rights on our property as noted in item 7.1 of the Certificate of Location dated March 7, 2008 (copy attached). Me.

Garneau asked that we obtain a letter from the City of Westmount confirming “acquired rights” as stated in the aforementioned Certificate of Location which was prepared by Paul Audet, Land Surveyor. On Friday July 2, 2010, we presented a written request to Joanne Poirier, Director of the Urban Planning Department requesting a letter affirming the acquired rights.

On Wednesday July 7, 2010 we met with Madame Poirier to discuss this matter and presented her with a letter that we had received from Rabin & Rabin (copy attached) when we purchased the house in 1995 in which is stated that “acquired rights” on the property were verbally confirmed by Westmount. Madame Poirier took the letter and stated that she would review the matter and issue a letter by the end of that week. On Monday July 12, 2010 I received a copy of the letter which did not indicate “acquired rights” but instead was a letter of “tolerance” (copy attached). We, as sellers, and Me.

Garneau, representing the buyers, found this letter to be unacceptable. The letter (copy attached) as written created serious jeopardy to both the impending sale and the future value of the property. On Tuesday July 13, we met again with Madame Poirier to attempt to clarify the issue of “tolerance” versus “acquired rights”. We asked how we could have acquired rights in 1995 when we purchased the property but not in 2010 when we are selling the property. We did note receive a direct answer from Madame Poirier and requested she speak directly to Me. Garneau to resolve the issue, which she did but to no avail. Me.

Garneau contacted us and requested our permission to review the City Archives to attempt to confirm our acquired rights. Me. Garneau also informed me that Paul Audet had received a fax from Guilleume Longchamps (Westmount urban Planning) in which the

incorrect “apparent” construction date of 1941 was note corrected, and therefore, confirmed by the Urban Planning Department. We told her that could not possibly be correct and that my understanding was that the house was approximately 100 years old. (Her subsequent research indicated a construction date of 1911.) On Thursday July 15, Me. Garneau visited Westmound and searched the archives to establish the acquired rights. Her findings are detailed in the attached invoice.

On Friday July 16m the city of Westmount issued a letter stating that we did in fact have acquired rights for the front setback and the garage, and further that the south-east wall is not a non-conforming situation as stated in the previous letter.

We believe that the Urban Planning Department of the City of Westmount has an obligation to its property owners to keep up to date and accurate records, and that further the response to our original request of July 2, 2010, was performed in cursory and slipshod manner without regard to the additional documentation supplied by us or the potential impact on the value of our property. The letter of “tolerance” not only reserved the right of the City of Westmount’s to revoke the “tolerance”, buy also would allow any interested third party to challenge the “tolerance”.

Quite obviously this, in our opinion, and that of Me. Garneau, would have created a significant impairment in the value of the property. This failure to perform by the Urban Planning Department left us no choice buy to commission Me. Garneau to do the research that should have been done by the Urban Planning Department before issuing the factually incorrect letter issued to us on July 9, 2010 incorrectly stating “tolerance” as opposed to “acquired rights”. Based on the foregoing we are requesting that the City of Westmount reimburse us for the out of pocket costs incurred to resolve this matter.

We would appreciate a prompt response to this request as we are also considering other options for recompense. […] » [ 5 ] Dans la réponse à la mise en demeure datée du 25 octobre 2010, on retrouve la position de la Ville de Westmount qui est énoncée en ces termes : « The present is in response to your letter of August 4 th . As mentioned during our telephone conversation of September 30 th , according to the doctrine 1 and jurisprudence 2 , the onus to prove acquired rights is on the person who is claiming them.

In order to establish that a building benefits from acquired rights, one must prove that at one point in time such building conformed (amongst other things as the case may be) to City by-laws. We understand that proving acquired rights may require some research in the city’s archives and, though each case has its own particularities, the administration assists its citizens in the research process as much as possible. In your file, the research not only required looking through the City’s archives but also through old deeds which are not City documents.

In your case, the City’s administration went above and beyond in assisting your notary as the undersigned helped Me Garneau for almost half a day in her research. Therefore, the City of Westmount denies liability in this file. » [ 6 ] Suite aux recherches exhaustives effectuées par Me Isabelle Garneau, Notaire ( Pièce P-6-3), qui a eu à examiner des documents dépoussiérés qui remontent à 1902, la Ville a révisé sa position et reconnu l'existence des droits acquis en question (Pièce P- 7-1).

ANALYSE ET MOTIFS [ 7 ] Afin de réussir dans son recours, il appartient au demandeur de démontrer que la Ville de Westmount a manqué à une obligation légale ou réglementaire ou que ses préposés ou mandataires ont commis une faute pour engager sa responsabilité pour le montant réclamé. [ 8 ] Essentiellement, le demandeur reproche à la Ville de Westmount de ne pas avoir tenu des registres à jour et de lui avoir fourni des informations inexactes quant à l'existence d'un droit acquis, ce qui a nécessité des recherches et occasionné des déboursés pour rectifier la situation. [ 9 ] La preuve testimoniale et la preuve documentaire présentées par le demandeur ne permet pas d'établir que la Ville de Westmount a manqué à une obligation légale ou réglementaire ou que ses préposés ou mandataires ont commis une faute pour engager sa responsabilité pour le montant réclamé. [ 10 ] En effet, il ressort de la preuve que la prétention de la Ville voulant qu'afin d'établir l'existence du droit acquis en question, des recherches dans des documents externes autre que les registres de la Ville étaient requises, c'est ce qui transparaît de la facture produite au soutien de la réclamation des demandeurs,( Pièce P-6-3). [ 11 ] Il est par ailleurs en preuve que les préposés de la Ville ont assisté la notaire dans ses recherches.

La preuve n'est pas concluante que les préposés de la Ville ont induit en erreur le demandeur. [ 12 ] VU que le moyen soulevé par la Ville de Westmount à l"encontre du recours des demandeurs est conforme à l'état du droit [1] sur la question de droit acquis; [ 13 ] VU l'absence de preuve que la Ville de Westmount a manqué à une obligation légale ou réglementaire ou que ses préposés ou mandataires ont commis une faute pour engager sa responsabilité pour le montant réclamé; [ 14 ] Le Tribunal conclut que le recours doit échouer; [ 15 ] POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL :

[ 16 ] REJETTE la demande. __________________________________ DANIEL DORTÉLUS, J.C.Q. Date d’audience : 17 décembre2013