2015 QCCQ 5623, 2015 QCCQ 5623

Hermes Restaurant Equipment and Store Fixtures Inc. c. Petsinis 2015 QCCQ 5623 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-139644-134 DATE: April 27, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE JULIE VEILLEUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HERMES RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT & STORE FIXTURES INC. 2000 Avenue Barbe Laval, Québec H7T 1M3 Plaintiff vs.

CHRISTOS PETSINIS […] Montréal, Québec […] Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff claims a $5,748.75 finder's fee from Defendant following a construction contract. Defendant denies owing the finder's fee as he was not involved in said contract. THE CONTEXT [ 2 ] Plaintiff is represented at the hearing by Mr. Nick Amanatidis and has been involved in the construction business for several years in the Montreal Chinatown. Defendant is a general contractor with whom Mr.

Amanatidis has done business before August of 2009. According to Mr. Amanatidis, Plaintiff introduced Defendant a client, Mr. Fung NG Wan who needed a contractor in August of 2009. [ 3 ] According to Mr. Amanatidis, there was an agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant with respect to a finder's fee in the amount of $5,000 plus taxes. The finder's fee was calculated on a percentage basis: Plaintiff was to receive a fee in the amount of 5% of the construction contract signed between Mr. Wan and Defendant. [ 4 ] Mr.

Amanatidis files into the Court record quotes of the work to be done at the construction site and the latest quote, dated September 9, 2009, amounts to $99,470.00 plus taxes. From Mr. Amanatidis standpoint, Mr. Wan made a first payment to Defendant in June 2011 in the amount of $23,000 and the remaining was to be paid as the construction work progressed. [ 5 ] In June of 2013, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant requesting the payment of the finder's fee. According to Mr. Amanatidis between June 2011 and 2013, he made several phone calls and had a few meetings with Defendant in order to be paid.

However, Defendant always found excuses, namely the fact that the client had not paid the construction contract in full. [ 6 ] Mr. Amanatidis's daughter, Marias, testified that she was present to a meeting held in a restaurant in Laval in the fall of 2012 where her father, Defendant and his father were present and discussed the payment of the finder's fee. According to Marias, who had witnessed a number of time her father trying to reach Defendant by phone, Defendant was waiting to get the balance of the contract paid before paying Plaintiff. [ 7 ] Plaintiff also had Defendant's father testify, Mr.

Kostas Petsinis. Basically, Mr. Petsinis testified that he was present at a meeting with Mr. Amanatidis and his daughter Marias together with his son, Defendant. During said meeting, Mr. Petsinis explained to Mr. Amanatidis that he had to claim is finder's fee from someone else than Defendant since the later had not signed nor performed the construction contract. [ 8 ] In addition, Defendant testifies that there was no agreement with Plaintiff nor Mr. Amanatidis as no document was filed. He explained that he began to work as a constructor in July of 2012 and that before, he was employed by a company called AGLP.

His job was to prepare quotations for AGLP namely one regarding Mr. Wan's contract. However, AGLP did not want to do this job and the

contract with Mr. Wan was signed by another general constractor, Justriel Constructions. It is Justriel Constructions who did the job and Defendant was not involved in this contract, was not paid for it and surely will not pay a finder's fee to Plaintiff. [ 9 ] Defendant explained to Mr. Amanatidis that for several months the construction contract had to be completed before any finder's fee could be paid. In addition, he made clear that said fee would not be paid by him since he was not involved in said contract. ANALYSIS [ 10 ] Plaintiff has the onus of establishing that his claim is well founded as per

Section 2803 of the Civil Code of Québec which reads as follows: A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. A person who claims that a right is null, has been modified or is extinguished shall prove the facts on which he bases his claim. [ 11 ] Plaintiff filed no document pertaining to an agreement with Defendant and did not demonstrate that Defendant was linked in anyway with Justriel Constructions.

The proof rather indicates that if any finder's fee was to be paid to Plaintiff, it is not by Defendant. [ 12 ] In view of the foregoing, Plaintiff has neglected to prove an agreement with Defendant pertaining to his finder's fee and therefore the Court must dismiss its claim. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Hermes Restaurant Equipment & Store Fixtures Inc. against Christos Petsinis; THE WHOLE , with costs ($157). __________________________________ JULIE VEILLEUX, J.C.Q. Date of hearings: April 9, 2015