2017 QCCQ 5892, 2017 QCCQ 5892

Paish c. Keith 2017 QCCQ 5892 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL Civil Division No. 500-32-151282-169 DATE: May 30, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE HENRI RICHARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Thomas Paish Plaintiff v.

Michael Keith and 9202-6467 QUÉBEC inc. (Ka Design) Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Thomas Paish is claiming from Michael Keith and 9202-6467 Québec inc. ( Ka Design ), solidarily, $15,000 further to the termination of a contract of enterprise signed in July 2014. [ 2 ] Mr.

Paish alleges and testifies that he terminated the contract of enterprise after being informed of Ka Design's problems with the tax authorities. [ 3 ] He is seeking the reimbursement of the sums paid as a down payment for works as yet unperformed and for the amount Ka Design receives from Ville de Montréal as reimbursement for the building permit. [ 4 ] The record shows that Ka Design did not file any contestation with the Court, so Mr. Paish proceeded by default against it. [ 5 ] On his part, Mr. Keith alleges in his contestation that Mr. Paish's claim is ill-founded in fact and in law.

At trial, he argued that there was no legal relationship with Mr. Paish. QUESTION IN DISPUTE [ 6 ] Is there a legal relationship between Thomas Paish and Michael Keith? CONTEXT AND ANALYSIS [ 7 ] Mr. Paish, who wanted to increase the size of his building, retained the services of Ka Design in a contract of enterprise signed on July 4, 2014. [ 8 ] The contract is unambiguous. It was reached between by Mr. Paish and Ka Design, represented by Michael Keith. [ 9 ] Mr.

Paish has based his action on contractual liability, citing the contract of enterprise entered into with Ka Design. [ 10 ] Since the contract does not involve Mr. Keith personally and that Mr. Paish has not asked for the corporate veil to be lifted, the Court concludes that his claim against Mr. Keith is ill-founded, hence, it dismisses it. [ 11 ] However, exercising its judicial discretion, the Court is not imposing any costs. [ 12 ] As concerns Mr. Paish's claim against Ka Design, the Court has no alternative but to allow it, given the absence of contestation, the testimony of Mr.

Paish, who is claiming $15,000 as reimbursement for the down payment with respect to works as yet unperformed, and the building permit for which Ka Design receives a reimbursement. [ 13 ] Furthermore, given the absence of contestion of Ka Design, the Court does not have to scrutinize the terms and conditions of the contract that was entered into, rather, it must analyze the merit of Mr. Paish's claim against Ka Design. [ 14 ] Considering that Mr. Paish has established the merit of his claim against Ka Design, the Court allows it.

THEREFORE, the Court: ALLOWS Thomas Paish's claim against 9202-6467 Québec inc. (Ka Design); DISMISSES Thomas Paish's claim against Michael Keith, without costs; CONDEMNS 9202-6467 Québec inc. (Ka Design) to pay to Thomas Paish $15,000 with interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity provided for in

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec , as of March 20, 2015, date of the formal notice; CONDEMNS 9202-6467 Québec inc. (Ka Design) to pay to Thomas Paish $200 as legal costs. __________________________________ Henri Richard, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: April 11, 2017