2012 QCCQ 3339, 2012 QCCQ 3339

Leblanc c. Naghielli 2012 QCCQ 3339 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF HULL TOWN OF GATINEAU Civil Division No: 550-32-018504-107 DATE: April 17, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL SHEEHAN, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ Me RICHARD M. LEBLANC, 256 boul. St-Joseph, Suite 200, Gatineau, QC, J8Y 3X8 Plaintiff v.

EDITH ANGELES NAGHIELLI , […], Gatineau, QC, […] and HECTOR MARTINEZ , […], Gatineau, QC, […] Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr. LeBlanc, a member of the Bar, practicing in Gatineau, is claiming 593.86$ from Madam Naghielli and Mr. Martinez for legal services of 450 $ plus disbursements and taxes. For the following reasons, the claim must be granted as presented. [ 2 ] The legal services were rendered for the benefit of the defendants.

They involved verifying and obtaining removal of an encroachment upon their property by neighbours for the purpose of obtaining electrical services from a power source located exclusively on defendants’ property.

This unauthorized installation, if not removed, would have deprived defendants of a needed use of such power source for their own benefit. [ 3 ] The case was studied and a firm but explicit demand letter was served by a bailiff upon defendants' neighbours and their contractor, with the result that the encroachment and illegal installation was removed without further costs. [ 4 ] Defendants contend, “They don’t know Mr. LeBlanc, never talked to him and never requested his services”. They testified that their contractor, Mr.

Péris discussed their problem with them and they agreed that he would, “look after it for them.” Mr. LeBlanc insists, “Mrs. Naghielli called him by phone and confirmed the mandate given for his services.” What is certain here is that Mr. Péris had a meeting with Mr. LeBlanc and sought his assistance in resolving the defendants’ problem. [ 5 ] The Civil Code sets out that a mandate is a contract by which the mandator, empowers another person, the mandatary, to represent him in the performance of a legal act with a third person [1] .

A mandator is liable to third persons for the acts performed by the mandatary in the performance and within the limits of his mandate [2] . A person who has allowed the belief that another person was his mandatary is liable, as if he were his mandatary, to a third person who has contracted in good faith with the latter [3] [ 6 ] The proof demonstrates, at the very least, that defendants retained Mr. LeBlanc’s services through Mr. Péris. In agreeing to have Mr. Péris “Look after their problem for them.” They gave him a broad enough mandate to retain Mr. LeBlanc’s legal services for their benefit. Mr.

LeBlanc on the other hand, was perfectly justified in understanding that Madam Naghielli and Mr. Martinez had in fact

retained his services. [ 7 ] In view of these circumstances and the applicable rules, The Court concludes that Mr. LeBlanc’s claim must be granted as filed. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: CONDEMNS the defendants to pay the plaintiff 593.86$, jointly and severally with interest of 12.56% annually along with the additional indemnity set out in the Civil Code since November 2, 2009; WITH COSTS set at 70.00 $ __________________________________ MICHAEL SHEEHAN, J.Q.C. Date of hearing: March 30, 2012