2013 QCCQ 3947, 2013 QCCQ 3947

Brouillette & Partners c. Amanak Radiation Thermal Bonding Equipment Ltd. 2013 QCCQ 3947 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-123154-108 DATE: April 17, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ BROUILLETTE & PARTNERS Plaintiff v.

AMANAK RADIATION THERMAL BONDING EQUIPMENT LIMITED Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff claims $3,558.47, representing the unpaid professional fees owed by the Defendant. [ 2 ] The Defendant denies owing any amount. Moreover, the retainer of $1,000.00, already paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, should cover the work done. THE FACTS [ 3 ] In 2008, Mr. Thomas Geissmann, at the time, a lawyer practicing with Plaintiff, is specialized in intellectual property law.

He says that Mr. Stephen Collins, Defendant's representative, retained his services to analyse a patent registered by the Defendant to repair thermal windows. [ 4 ] In addition, the Defendant was alleging that a number of companies and individuals were infringing its patents. [ 5 ] Plaintiff was paid a retainer of $1,000.00 [1] . Sixteen demand letters were sent on July 2 nd , 2008 [2] . [ 6 ] On August 6, 2008, the Plaintiff sent its account for the amount of $4,558.47.

The retainer of $1,000.00 was deducted, the balance owed is $3,558.47, which has not been paid by the Defendant and which is claimed by the action instituted by the Plaintiff. [ 7 ] Mr. Collins says that the mandate given to the Plaintiff was limited to sending demand letters. He never asked that the Plaintiff analyse the patents. In fact, the Defendant had, in the past, retained the services of another law firm, Smart & Biggar, who had instituted an action on behalf of the Defendant. The latter could not pay for two litigations.

This explains why the mandate to the Plaintiff was limited to the demand letters. [ 8 ] Mr. Anthony Butler, a former employee of the Defendant, confirms Mr. Collins’ testimony that the Defendant would not have gained any benefit from the analysis of the patents. If the Plaintiff did analyse the patents, no report was provided to the Defendant. [ 9 ] Mr. Butler provides the Court with emails sent by the Defendant to most of the same people to whom the Plaintiff wrote the demand letters ( Exhibit P-1 ), which letters are practically identical to the contents of the emails.

THE ANALYSIS [ 10 ] The Court notes that no evidence is provided by the Plaintiff of the work that would have been done in addition to sending demand letters. Moreover, the accounts sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant ( Exhibit P-2 ) provide no details as to the time spent on each portion of the work. The Plaintiff charges a global amount of $3,600.00 for his fees. [ 11 ] The Court also notes that no estimate was provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. [ 12 ] From Mr.

Geissmann’s testimony, the Court concludes that the only work performed by the Plaintiff consists of sending demand letters to various companies and individuals. As these letters are basically a reproduction of the emails already sent to most of the same persons ( Exhibit D-1 ), the Court cannot conclude that the work performed by the Plaintiff justifies fees of $4,558.47.

[ 13 ] On the contrary, the Court concludes that the amount of $1,000.00 already paid to the Plaintiff, should amply cover the work done. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiff's action, with costs, in the amount of $165.00 representing the judicial stamp of the contestation. __________________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.Q.C.