2018 QCCQ 8284, 2018 QCCQ 8284

Micmacs of Gesgapegiag Band c. Johnson 2018 QCCQ 8284 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF BONAVENTURE TOWN OF NEW CARLSISLE Civil Division No: 105-32-001790-179 DATE: October 2, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DENIS PARADIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Micmacs of Gesgapegiag Band, Plaintiff v.

Catherine Johnson, Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Micmacs of Gesgapegiag Band (Gesgapegiag) seeks to recover a sum totalling $ 4 830.00 from Mrs Catherine Johnson. The plaintiff argues that she received two payments inappropriately, one of $ 1 904.00 and the other one of $ 2 926.00. [ 2 ] The defendant answers that she did nothing inappropriate.

For the first sum, she received a cheque from the financial controller, Mrs Christina Burnsed, cause she had assumed the position of director general for several weeks. [ 3 ] For the second one, there is a payment for the travel fees. The reimbursement was made to her cause Mr Condo, a delegate for the trip, was away. She deposited the amount in his account for him. THE EVIDENCE [ 4 ] Mrs Mellissa Bryan is representant for Gesgapegiag. She files exhibits P-1 at P-10, which explain the argumentation of the plaintiff.

Mrs Bryan doesn’t know anything more. [ 5 ] There are an audit from Mrs Sylvie Lecompte, director of assessment and investigation services for the Aboriginal Affairs, a letter from Clément Bernard, a letter from the chief band council Mr Roderick Larocque, a letter from Mrs Sylvie Lecompte, two emails from Pascal Dubé, senior officer for Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, a resolution of the Gesgapegiag, the payroll register, and finally, the defendant’s record of employment. [ 6 ] Mrs Catherine Johnson testifies that Mr Clément Bernard was in work break when she occupied the positon of director general starting to November 2010 to January 2011.

However, she recognizes that she received her regular salary, but that the sum of $ 1 904.00 is an adjustment. She explains that Mrs Burnsed, the financial controller, issued to her the cheque for this amount. [ 7 ] Mrs Johnson also testifies that the sum of $ 2 926.00 was for the expenses relatively to an education rally at Ottawa. Her son, Quentin Condo, was a delegate in charge of four youths. If the cheque was made to her name, it just because Quentin Condo was away. She deposited this sum in his account. [ 8 ] Mrs Tammy Martin was the assistant at the director when the events occurred.

For her, she says in court, the sum of $ 1 904.00 was an adjustment. ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 9 ] The

section 2803 of the civil Code prescribes that a person wishing to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. The burden of proof for the plaintiff is the balance of probabilities. In other words, evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its no-existence. [ 10 ] At the case at bar, the plaintiff doesn’t climb his burden of proof. First, Gesgapegiag has no witness about what is occurred exactly. The Court cannot taking into account, as decisive evidence, the exhibits that constitutes hearsay. [ 11 ] Nobody comes before court to tell the contrary of what Mrs Johnson pleads.

[ 12 ] Mrs Johnson was credible. And the testimony of Mrs Martin gives a lighting concerning the explanations of the defendant. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 13 ] DISMISS the action; [ 14 ] WHITH COSTS. __________________________________ Denis Paradis, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: September 25, 2018