2016 QCCQ 11697, 2016 QCCQ 11697

Tabor c. Expansion Immo 2016 QCCQ 11697 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL Civil Division No: 500-32-147751-152 DATE: October 21, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY JUDGE HENRI RICHARD ______________________________________________________________________ ILONA TABOR Plaintiff v.

EXPANSION IMMO Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ilano Tabor is claiming from the real estate agency Expansion Immo ( Expansion ) $14,064 as a result of an alleged promise to rent her condo at $900 per month. [ 2 ] In its contestation, Expansion, acting through the real estate broker Diane Lulelaru, denies any promise, undertaking or guarantee to Ms Tabor to rent her condo.

Question in dispute [ 3 ] Did Expansion, through Ms Lulelaru, make any promise, undertaking or guarantee to Ms Tabor to rent her condo at $900 per month? Context and analysis [ 4 ] In civil law, the burden of proof is on Plaintiff’s shoulders in accordance with the principle provided for in

article 2803 of the Civil Code of Québec ( C.C.Q . ) which states “a person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based”. [ 5 ] The Court must weigh the probabilities pursuant to

article 2804 C.C.Q . which states “evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence”.

In other words, the Court must establish what is more probable and likely. [ 6 ] After analysing the documentary evidence and the testimony of both parties, the Court concludes that Ms Tabor has not met her burden of establishing, by preponderant evidence, the merits of her claim. [ 7 ] The evidence shows that Ms Tabor bought her condo, through Ms Lulelaru, on October 19, 2012. [ 8 ] Ms Tabor alleges and testifies that Ms Lulelaru promise, undertook and guarantee that she would rent her condo at $900 per month. [ 9 ] Ms Lulelaru categorically denies any promise, undertaking or guarantee to rent Ms Tabor’s condo. [ 10 ] On the contrary, Ms Lulelaru establishes that on December 5, 2012, she met with Ms Tabor for the purpose of signing a brokerage contract to rent her condo.

Ms Tabor refused to sign the said contract and hired another agency to rent her condo in January 2013 and June 2013. [ 11 ] Nowhere in the documentation is there any promise, undertaking or guarantee that Expansion would rent Ms Tabor’s condo at $900 per month. [ 12 ] Also, the Court cannot put aside Ms Lulelaru’s testimony to the effect that Ms Tabor refused to sign a brokerage contract for the purpose of renting her condo and that she never promised, undertook or guaranteed to rent Ms Tabor’s condo.

[ 13 ] Consequently, the Court has no choice but to dismiss Ms Tabor’s claim. However, exercising its judicial discretion, the Court imposes no legal costs. THEREFORE, the Court: DISMISSES Ilona Tabor’s claim againt Expansion Immo, each party paying her or its own legal costs. __________________________________ Henri Richard, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: October 11, 2016