2015 QCCQ 10990, 2015 QCCQ 10990

Friedman c. Goldwater, Dubé inc. 2015 QCCQ 10990 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-147153-151 DATE: October 26, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ RONALD FRIEDMAN Plaintiff / cross-defendant / RESPONDENT v. GOLDWATER, DUBÉ INC.

Defendant / cross-plaintiff / PETITIONER ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT on DEFENDANT'S MOTION to TRANSFER the FILE to the COURT of QUEBEC, CIVIL DIVISION (Article 968 C.C.P .) ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The defendant, in its motion, asks the Court to transfer the case to the Court of Quebec, Civil Division, because the amount of their cross-demand “exceeds the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division”. [1] Its amended claim in fact totals $23,012.24. [ 2 ] In response, the plaintiff asks the Court to dismiss the defendant’s motion, on the basis that the “sole purpose of the defendant’s counter-claim is to use it to have this Court transfer the case to the Court of Quebec”. [2] [ 3 ] It is worth reproducing, in the first place,

article 968 Code of Civil Procedure , which enumerates the conditions that must be met for a counter-claim to be admissible: it must arise out of the same source as the plaintiff’s claim or from a related source. Furthermore, the claim must be admissible under Book VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure , relating to actions involving small claims: "968. If the defendant chooses to contest the merits of the action, the defendant so advises the clerk and sets out the grounds for contestation in a written contestation. The defendant files the exhibits supporting the defendant's allegations at the office of the court.

The clerk notifies a copy of the contestation to the plaintiff, together with a list of the exhibits filed by the defendant.

If the defendant wishes to make a counter-claim against the plaintiff, arising out of the same source as the plaintiff's claim or from a related source and the counter-claim is admissible under this Book , the defendant may demand payment thereof in the contestation and file the exhibits supporting the related allegations." [underlining added] [ 4 ] The first rule regarding the admissibility of a claim in the Small Claims Division being that the amount claimed must not exceed its jurisdiction, the counter-claim must not be allowed, as it exceeds the jurisdictional amount.

[ 5 ] In opposing the counter-claim and the request to have the file transferred to the Civil Division, the plaintiff brought the case L'Heureux c. L'Heureux , 2009 QCCQ 6617 to the Court’s attention. In paragraph 4 of his judgement, Honourable Richard Laflamme stated the following: "[4] Ainsi, pour être admissible à

titre de petites créances, une demande, même reconventionnelle, ne peut excéder 7 000 $. À ce sujet, la jurisprudence est sans équivoque. Il est tout aussi clair qu'une demande reconventionnelle non admissible devant la division des petites créances ne peut faire l'objet d'un renvoi devant la chambre civile de la Cour du Québec […]." [ 6 ] Judge Laflamme refers to Côté c.

Gagnon , 2006 QCCQ 12779 , where Honourable Gabriel de Pokomandy expressed himself as follows: "[18] Le motif de la saine administration de la justice ne peut justifier d’écarter l’exigence de l’article 968 du Code de procédure civile du Québec que pour être recevable, la demande reconventionnelle doit être à l’intérieur de la limite de juridiction de la division des petites créances." [ 7 ] This reasoning has been confirmed by recent judgments . [3] [ 8 ] For example, in Lemieux c.

Concessionnaire L'Ami junior Excellence Nissan , 2014 QCCQ 8952 , the defendant, in her counter- claim, was suing for an amount which exceeded the then jurisdictional limit of $7,000.00, and alleged defamatory comments from the plaintiff.

The Court declared her counter-claim and her demand to have the case transferred to the Civil Division as inadmissible, for the following reasons: "[6] Peut-être s'agit-il d'une demande reconventionnelle ayant la même source ou une source connexe que la demande principale mais puisqu'elle excède la valeur de 7 000 $ et qu'elle réclame notamment pour des propos diffamatoires, elle n'est pas admissible à la Division des petites créances. [7] La demande reconventionnelle est donc irrégulièrement produite et devra être introduite devant la chambre civile, la demande principale aux petites créances subsistant. [8] Il appartiendra aux parties, le cas échéant, de prendre les dispositions procédurales nécessaires pour gérer la situation. [9] C'est ainsi que dans des situations similaires les juges Gilles Gagnon, Gabriel de Pokomandy et Daniel Dortélus ont décidé dans les affaires Domaine du Bison , Côté et Paré ." [ 9 ] The defendant has submitted jurisprudence in favor of a transfer of the claim to the Civil Division.

In the first case, Capitale Élite régionale (La) c. Favreau , 2011 QCCQ 3284 , the issue did not relate to the admissibility of a claim, but whether a plaintiff could amend the action to increase the claim and therefore have the file transferred to the Civil Division. It is hence not applicable in the present situation. WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DECLARES that defendant's amended cross-demand is inadmissible under Book VIII of the C.P.C.; DISMISSES defendant's motion to transfer the file to the Court of Quebec, Civil Division. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q.

Date of hearing: September 28, 2015 [2] Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss a Portion of Defendant’s Cross-Demand and Request to Impose Sanctions for Improper Use of

Procedure, par. 13. [3] Paré c. Bissou , 2014 QCCQ 647 : « demande reconventionnelle est irrégulièrement produite, elle devra être introduite devant la Cour supérieure. Il n’appartient pas à cette Cour de transférer la demande reconventionnelle, il appartient aux défendeurs d’entreprendre les procédures devant la Cour supérieure ce qu’ils ont déjà fait » (par. 7 and 8); Vallée des fantômes inc. c. Lacasse , 2011 QCCQ 15613 : « La demande reconventionnelle est donc irrégulièrement produite et devra être introduite devant la chambre civile, la demande principale aux petites créances subsistant » (par. 7).