2013 QCCQ 12054, 2013 QCCQ 12054

Maçonnerie Mathieu inc. c. 9217-2816 Québec inc. 2013 QCCQ 12054 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-22-201155-135 DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MARTINE L. TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MAÇONNERIE MATHIEU INC. Plaintiff v. 9217-2816 QUÉBEC INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff Maçonnerie Mathieu inc. ( “Maçonnerie Mathieu” ) seeks hypothecary conclusions against Defendant 9217-2816 Québec inc. ( “9217” ), owner of a building situated at 5209-5219 Décarie Blvd., in Montréal (the “Immovable” ). [ 2 ] Defendant pleads that he did not enter into a contract with Plaintiff for the removal and replacement of the bricks of the Immovable's rear wall (the “Work” ).

That contract was the responsibility of the general contractor, Construction J. P. Gaudet inc. ( “Gaudet” ). QUESTION IN LITIGATION [ 3 ] Was there a contract between Maçonnerie Mathieu and 9217 for the renovation of the Immovable’s rear wall? THE RELEVANT FACTS [ 4 ] On February 27, 2012, Mr. Peter Litinas ( “Mr. Litinas” ), representative of 9217, signed a contract with Gaudet for the renovation of the Immovable [1] . [ 5 ] On that same day, Gaudet retained the services of Les Habitations Massar inc. ( “Massar” ), a duly licensed contractor specialized in masonry, represented by Mr. Mathieu Brassard ( “Mr.

Brassard” ), to proceed with the removal and installation of new bricks on the façade and the south side wall of the Immovable [2] . [ 6 ] Around the end of October 2012, not having been paid, Gaudet decided to resiliate its contract [3] with 9217. By then, Massar had completed its work under the contract [4] and Gaudet had informed Mr. Brassard of its financial difficulties with 9217. [ 7 ] Towards the end of November 2012, Mr. Litinas met with Mr. Brassard, who was also a director of Maçonnerie Mathieu.

There is a dispute between the parties as to whether 9217 signed the contract dated November 29, 2012 [5] (the “Contract” ), with respect to the Work, but 9217 gave Maçonnerie Mathieu two cheques of $5,000, dated November 30, 2012, and indicated the address of the Immovable as a reference. [ 8 ] One cheque was drawn on Canadian Tire Bank [6] and was refused upon presentation for payment, with no specific mention of the reason.

The other was drawn on TD Canada Trust [7] and was also refused upon presentation for payment for insufficient funds. [ 9 ] Maçonnerie Mathieu was verbally informed of the financial institution's refusal of the cheques [8] only on or about December 5, 2012. In the meantime, most of the Work, that had started on November 30, 2012, was done. Balconies and railings were finished by December 15, 2012. [ 10 ] On December 18, 2012, Maçonnerie Mathieu published a Notice of Legal Hypothec in favour of a person having taken

part in the renovation of the Immovable [9] (the “Notice” ), alleging an increase of $42,655.73 in value added to the Immovable. This is the amount of its invoice [10] . It corresponds to the amount indicated on the Contract [11] . [ 11 ] Despite a defence that the claim is exaggerated, 9217 did not offer evidence of its entitlement to a credit. Indeed, 15 cubes of bricks were supplied for the Work [12] , but there is no indication of how many linear feet there are in a box.

Therefore, the Court cannot infer that the 50 linear feet of bricks that remained after completion of the Work entitles 9217 to a credit. [ 12 ] The Notice was served upon 9217 on December 27, 2012. [ 13 ] Remaining unpaid, Maçonnerie Mathieu published a Prior Notice of the Exercise of the Hypothecary Right of Sale by judicial authority [13] (the “Prior Notice” ) on December 28, 2012 and instituted the present action on April 3, 2013.

THE ANALYSIS [ 14 ] 9217 filed a sworn statement [14] (the “Sworn Statement” ) by Mr. Litinas alleging that the signature and initials on the Contract are not Mr. Litinas’ or anyone else’s associated with 9217. [ 15 ] 9217’s attorney pleads that since the Notice [15] and Prior Notice [16] are based on the Contract [17] , the falsity resulting from the forgery of Mr. Litinas' signature and initials on the Contract [18] , renders the Notice [19] and Prior Notice [20] null and void, and hence this action, which is a hypothecary recourse, must fail. [ 16 ] The Court disagrees.

The Notice [21] and Prior Notice [22] refer to an agreement, without specifying if it is written or verbal. This agreement was clearly done in the ordinary course of 9217's business. Evidence of the agreement may therefore be made by testimony [23] . Therefore, the Court concludes that the Notice [24] and Prior Notice [25] can support the action as instituted, as well as they could support an action based on a verbal agreement. [ 17 ] The Court agrees with 9217's argument to the effect that Mr. Litinas' Sworn Statement forces Maçonnerie Mathieu to establish that the Contract [26] was indeed signed [27] .

But it disagrees that only an expert can provide such evidence [28] . [ 18 ] In fact, Mr. Brassard can testify as a witness to the signature, drafter of the Contract and author of the handwritten annotations. It is up to the Court to evaluate the quality and sufficiency of that evidence. [ 19 ] Mr. Litinas' demeanour and various contradictions during his testimony make it hard to accept the truthfulness of his statements, including the Sworn Statement. [ 20 ] Contrarily to what was implied by Mr. Litinas, the testimony of Mr. Gaudet and Mr.

Dumais and the various Notices of Legal Hypothec [29] are evidence that 9217 contracted directly with various subtrades. Thus, Mr. Litinas’ clear statement that a general contractor had to be and was always involved when it came to the renovation of the Immovable cannot stand. [ 21 ] Mr. Gaudet and Mr.

Brassard were very clear as to the scope of the work that was the object of the first contract and considering the actual number of legal hypothecs published on the Immovable by third party contractors, the Court accepts their testimony to the effect that 9217 had delayed its decision as to whether the Work would be done at a later date, depending on the cost and on the financial situation of the whole project. [ 22 ] Mr.

Litinas testifies that the cheques [30] were not on account of services to be rendered as per the Contract, but were to pay for work already performed by Maçonnerie Mathieu, at the request of Gaudet, because 9217 wanted balconies and railings to be installed. There is no independent documentary evidence supporting this statement. Furthermore, at the time Mr. Litinas gave the cheques [31] , there was more than just the balconies and railings to complete. The rear wall in its entirety had to be done. [ 23 ] Finally, the allegations that 9217 is victim of a plot between Mr. Gaudet, Mr. Dumais, of J. L.

Brique & Pierre, and Mr. Brassard, to the point where the cell phone messages [32] between Mr. Litinas and Mr. Brassard would be fabricated evidence, is not substantiated. In fact, there were situations where a writing would have been helpful to Maçonnerie Mathieu. Yet, there was none. Clearly, Mr.

Brassard is a man of action more than of writings, but his testimony was direct, clear and unequivocal. [ 24 ] The Court therefore concludes that 9217 retained the services of Maçonnerie Mathieu to perform the Work at the cost indicated in the Contract [33] . 9217 signed the Contract [34] and is the hypothecary debtor of Maçonnerie Mathieu. [ 25 ] The attorney for 9217 declined the opportunity that he was given, at the trial, to comment on the conclusions of the Motion for Forced Surrender.

Therefore, they will be granted as requested, except that the date for the calculation of the interest will be the date of service of the demand, namely December 27, 2012.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Forced Surrender; ASCERTAINS that Plaintiff is owed the sum of $42,655.73 together with interest at the rate au 24% per year calculated from December 27, 2012; DECLARES that Defendant has refused to surrender voluntarily the Immovable hereinafter described after the expiration of the sixty days following the publication and service of the Prior Notice of the exercise of the hypothecary right by Plaintiff; FIXES the period within which surrender shall be effected and DETERMINES the manner of effecting it and the conditions of the judicial sale as follows: ORDONNE à la défenderesse de délaisser l’immeuble ci-après décrit en faveur de la demanderesse dans les quinze (15) jours de la signification du jugement afin que la demanderesse en prenne possession pour qu’il soit vendu sous contrôle de justice; Désignation de l’immeuble «Un immeuble situé sur le boulevard Décarie, à Montréal, connu et désigné comme étant le lot numéro 2 647 830 au cadastre du Québec, circonscription foncière de Montréal.

Avec la bâtisse dessus érigée portant le numéro civique 5209-5219, boulevard Décarie, à Montréal, province de Québec, H3W 3C2» ORDONNE l’expulsion de la défenderesse par voie de justice à défaut par cette dernière de délaisser l’immeuble; À DÉFAUT par la défenderesse de délaisser l’immeuble de la manière susdite dans les délais impartis, qu’elle en soit expulsée ainsi que

ses biens par voie de justice; AUTORISE la vente aux enchères de l’immeuble sous contrôle de justice à la mise à prix fixée par le Tribunal ci-après.

NOMME André Perron ou tout autre huissier de l’étude Paquette & Associés afin qu’il procède à la vente aux enchères de l’immeuble ci-haut décrit, à la signature de l’acte de vente, à la préparation de l’état de collocation, à la distribution des deniers reçus et à toutes autres démarches nécessaires à la vente sous contrôle de justice dudit immeuble; FIXE la rémunération de Monsieur André Perron ou de tout autre huissier de l’étude Paquette & Associés à 105,00 $ de l’heure, plus tous déboursés nécessaires à l’exécution du jugement, sur présentation de pièces justificatives; FIXE les conditions de vente suivantes :

a) La personne nommée devra faire paraître dans le journal «Le Devoir» un avis en conformité avec les exigences de la Loi, au moins dix (10) jours avant de procéder aux enchères et publier un avis de vente aux enchères projeté au registre du bureau de la publicité des droits de la circonscription foncière de Montréal sur l’immeuble en question;

b) Permet que la désignation de l’immeuble dans l’annonce à paraître dans le journal «Le Devoir» soit faite en indiquant le numéro de l’adresse civique, au lieu de l’écrire en indiquant le numéro de lot;

c) Au jour ou au lieu indiqué et avant la mise aux enchères de l’immeuble, la personne nommée devra d’abord donner lecture du texte de l’annonce parue dans les journaux en conformité avec les exigences de la Loi, préciser les charges, le cas échéant, et les conditions de la vente susdite et mentionner l’existence de tout bail inscrit au Bureau de la Publicité des droits sur l’immeuble. Elle devra faire lecture des articles 685, 868 et 688 du C.p.c.;

d) La mise à prix est fixée à 500 000,00 $, soit 50 % de l’évaluation municipale;

e) Lors de l’adjudication, l’adjudicataire doit verser par chèque visé à l’ordre de Paquette & Associés en fidéicommis ou en argent comptant le montant total de son acquisition et l’adjudicataire doit aussi payer les frais relatifs à l’acte de vente et les droits de mutation, le cas échéant;

f) L’adjudicataire, et son représentant s’il y a lieu, devront être en mesure de fournir la preuve de leur identité. Ils devront, en conséquence,

i) S’il est une personne physique, déclarer son nom, son lieu et date de naissance et l’adresse de son domicile; ii) S’il est une personne morale, déclarer le nom, la forme juridique qu’elle emprunte, sa loi constitutive, son siège social et fournir la résolution autorisant le représentant à agir comme enchérisseur; iii) S’il est une société ou une association, déclarer le nom, la forme juridique qu’elle emprunte et son adresse et fournir une résolution autorisant le représentant à agir comme enchérisseur;

g) L’adjudicataire prend l’immeuble dans l’état où il se trouve au moment de l’adjudication et il l’acquiert sans garantie de contenance et de qualité, à ses risques et périls;

h) La demanderesse pourra s’en porter adjudicataire et retenir le montant de sa créance;

i) Aucune offre ou enchère ne peut être reçue si celui qui l’a faite ne déclare pas ses nom, qualité, profession et domicile. Les offres ou enchères peuvent être faites par procureur. Il est dressé un procès-verbal des offres et enchères reçues;

j) En aucun cas, l’adjudication ne peut être faite avant qu’il ne se soit écoulé quinze minutes depuis la première offre et cinq minutes depuis la dernière enchère. THE WHOLE with costs. __________________________________ MARTINE L. TREMBLAY, J.C.Q. M e Michel Semeteys Crochetière Pétrin Plaintiff’s Attorney Me Philip E. Fine

Defendant’s Attorney Date of hearing: September 26, 2013.