2015 QCCQ 14189, 2015 QCCQ 14189

Scotto Cameron c. Desjardins Assurance-vie 2015 QCCQ 14189 JG2338 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEAUHARNOIS LOCALITY OF CHATEAUGUAY Civil Division No: 760-32-016770-150 DATE: December 14, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE CÉLINE GERVAIS, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ CARMELA SCOTTO CAMERON Plaintiff v.

DESJARDINS ASSURANCE-VIE Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON A MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court is seized with a Motion presented by Mrs. Carmela Scotto Cameron of a judgment rendered on November 30, 2015 by Honourable Claude Montpetit, J.C.Q., further to a hearing that was held on November 13, 2015. [ 2 ] Mrs.

Scotto Cameron was asking in her Demand the reimbursement of insurance premiums she paid to Defendant Desjardins Assurance-Vie (Desjardins) from the date she subscribed to the contract, on July 2010, until the resiliation of the contract on February 14, 2015. [ 3 ] Mrs. Scotto Cameron was pleading that she was not aware until 2014 that the health insurance policy she subscribed to on July 15, 2010 was not covering all types of cancers. [ 4 ] In his judgment, Mr. Justice Montpetit considered the recording of the telephone conversation between Desjardins and Mrs.

Cameron in July 2010 regarding the subscription of the insurance policy. He then concluded that Mrs. Scotto Cameron agreed to the insurance policy, received the explanation, and was informed about the exclusions. He also concluded that she had the occasion, as early as July 2010, to read the policy. [ 5 ] In her Motion for revocation of judgment, Mrs. Scotto Cameron says that the judgment is wrong and that she said the truth and was honest in her testimony. She also alleges that there are more things that she needs to explain, and that she has evidence to say.

She concludes her Motion by asking that a second chance be given to her. [ 6 ]

Section 989 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: 989. If a party against whom a judgment by default is rendered was unable to contest the action or attend the hearing owing to surprise, fraud or any other sufficient cause, the party may apply for the revocation of the judgment. A party may also apply for the revocation of the judgment in any case described in

article 483 that is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Book. [ 7 ] As the judgment of November 30, 2015 was not a judgment by default, it is then

Section 483 of the Code of Civil Procedure that will apply. This

Section reads as follows:

483. Likewise, where there is no other useful recourse against a judgment, the court which rendered it may revoke it at the request of one of the parties, in the following cases:

(1) When the procedure prescribed has not been followed and the resulting nullity has not been covered;

(2) When the judgment has decided beyond the conclusions, or when it has failed to rule on one of the essential grounds of the suit;

(3) When, in the case of a minor or person of full age under tutorship or curatorship, no valid defence has been produced;

(4) When judgment has been rendered upon an unauthorized consent or tender subsequently disavowed;

(5) When judgment has been rendered upon documents whose falsity has only been discovered afterwards, or following fraud of the adverse party;

(6) When, since the judgment, decisive documents have been discovered whose production had been prevented by a circumstance of irresistible force or because of the act of the adverse party;

(7) When, since the judgment, new evidence has been discovered and it appears that: (

a) if it had been brought forward in time, the decision would probably have been different; (

b) it was known neither to the party nor to his attorney or agent and (

c) it could not, with all reasonable diligence, have been discovered in time. [ 8 ] In her Motion, Mrs. Scotto Cameron alleges none of the seven situations provided for in

Section 483 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [ 9 ] Mrs. Scotto Cameron had in the file her Exhibits, and she testified at the hearing, that lasted 53 minutes. [ 10 ] The revocation of a judgment is a procedure that can be used in the circumstances described in the Code of Civil Procedure, and not to allow a party whose action was dismissed to redo the trial a second time. FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Motion for revocation of judgment without cost. __________________________________ CÉLINE GERVAIS, J.Q.C.