2013 QCCQ 3798, 2013 QCCQ 3798

6865470 Canada inc. c. 2017923 Ontario inc. 2013 QCCQ 3798 JG2338 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEAUHARNOIS LOCALITY OF SALABERRY-DE-VALLEYFIELD Civil Division No: 760-32-014897-120 DATE: The 8 th day of April, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF: THE HONOURABLE CÉLINE GERVAIS, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ 6865470 CANADA INC. Plaintiff - cross defendant v. 2017923 ONTARIO INC.

Defendant - cross plaintiff ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] 6865470 Canada Inc. sues 2017923 Ontario Inc. on the basis of a cheque issued by mistake to 2017923 in the sum of $5310 on August 9, 2010. 6865470 alleges that 2017923 has cashed the cheque even though it was not entitled to the money. [ 2 ] 6865470 was a transportation company; a note on the cheque says it was made for ''load number 3980''. [ 3 ] 6865470 was represented at the hearing by Mr. Guhrinder Singh Johal.

In response to the Court questions as to what were his functions in the company, he answers that 6865470 was his father's company and that he was taking care of banking and finance, part time. He also said he was a shareholder of the company. The Court takes note that when the file was opened in the small claims Court Mr. Singh Johal declared under oath that he represented the company in his capacity as an officer. [ 4 ] When the Court asks Mr.

Singh Johal why the company has issued a cheque back in 2010 to 2017923 , he could not tell why, as he had signed blanked cheques, which were completed by Jazzinder Singh. [ 5 ] 6865470's action rests on a supposed admission made by 2017923's officers that happened first in mediation meeting that was held in the Sikh Temple, and on a second occasion at the hearing of a previous litigation before the small claims Court on February 9, 2012. [ 6 ] With its contestation, 2017923 filed many documents to prove a transportation contract, and that the cheque in the amount of $5310 was issued to pay their transportation fees and disbursements.

One of those documents is a ''trip report'' dated August 6, 2010, which refers to load number 3980. [ 7 ] With its contestation, 2017923 also files a cross-demand for improper procedure, based upon

Section 54.1 of the Code of civil procedure , claiming $5000 for damages, and loss of profit considering that 2017923 has only one officer who lost two days of work to take care of the unfounded claim of 6865470 . ANALYSIS AND DECISION: [ 8 ] The Court first questions the capacity of Guhrinder Singh Johal to represent 6865470 in Court, as, according to him and to the official documents of the Registre des entreprises du Québec, it is Mr. Ajit Singh Johal who is the first shareholder, president, secretary, and treasurer of the company.

No mandate was deposited to authorize him to represent the company. [ 9 ] 2017923's representative denied having said what Mr. Singh Johal alleges. Even if Mr. Avtar Singh Garcha said that he made business with 6865470 only three times, this does not mean that the cheque signed in 2010 was not validly issued, and for a good and valuable reason.

[ 10 ] There is absolutely no legal basis for this claim, which is dismissed. [ 11 ] As for the cross-demand, the Court agrees with 2017923 that such a claim constitutes an improper use of procedure, according to

Section 54.1 if the Code of civil procedure , which reads as follows: 54.1. A court may, at any time, on request or even on its own initiative after having heard the parties on the point, declare an action or other pleading improper and impose a sanction on the party concerned. The procedural impropriety may consist in a claim or pleading that is clearly unfounded, frivolous or dilatory or in conduct that is vexatious or quarrelsome. It may also consist in bad faith, in a use of procedure that is excessive or unreasonable or causes prejudice to another person, or in an attempt to defeat the ends of justice, in particular if it restricts freedom of expression in public debate. [ 12 ]

Section 54.4 of the Code of civil procedure provides that on ruling on whether an action is improper, the Court may condemn a party to pay, in addition to costs, damages and reparation for the prejudice suffered by another party. [ 13 ] An amount of $1000 will compensate 2017923 for the prejudice suffered by the institution of an action that was frivolous and unfounded.

FOR ALL THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiff's claim; GRANTS in part the cross-demand; ORDERS Plaintiff, 6865470 Canada Inc ., to pay to Defendant, 2017923 Ontario Inc ., the amount of $1000 plus the legal interest of 5% per annum, calculated from the date of the present judgment, plus the judicial costs of $199 for the contestation and $91.25 for the cross-demand. __________________________________ CÉLINE GERVAIS, J.Q.C.