2021 QCCQ 10258, 2021 QCCQ 10258

Rosenfeld Fisher c. Baron 2021 QCCQ 10258 COURT OF QUEBEC “Civil Division” CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No.: 500-22-262157-202 DATE: October 25, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING BY: MR. JUSTICE LOUIS RIVERIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ESTHER ROSENFELD FISHER Plaintiff v. RHONDA BARON Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Esther Rosenfeld Fisher (“ Ms.

Fisher ”) seeks compensation from Rhonda Baron (“ Ms. Baron ”) for damage suffered further to defamation, damage to her reputation, harassment, and interference with her right to vote at a meeting of co-owners. She considers these violations intentional and therefore claims punitive damages. She also claims the extrajudicial fees of her counsel, for a total of $47,012.85. [ 2 ] For the following reasons, the Court grants the application in part. Background [ 3 ] Ms.

Fisher is the owner of a condominium unit in the immovable owned in divided co-ownership known as “Le Dorado condominium”, where she has been living since 1985. Although she is 92 years old, she is an active woman who still works in her business everyday from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. [ 4 ] She is well known by the residents of the condominium building and was involved in the election for the board of directors of the condominium’s syndicate, supporting a candidate who ran against Ms. Baron. However, Ms. Baron won the election and was president of the board of directors at all times relevant to this case. [ 5 ] Ms.

Fisher explained that following that election, numerous incidents occurred involving Ms. Baron, such that she felt intimidated and harassed, resulting in the filing of the judicial application disposed of by this judgment . The incidents [ 6 ] The first incident happened at the pool, where Ms. Baron crossed paths with Ms. Fisher, who had come to swim. The lights were on, and Ms. Baron confronted Ms. Fisher, accusing her of not turning the lights off. She called Ms. Fisher a “bitch” and a “cocksucker”. [ 7 ] Ms. Baron told anyone who would listen that Ms.

Fisher shook out her mop on the hallway carpet and that, in so doing, the dust from her unit flew around in the common areas. Ms. Fisher testified that she does not have a mop, but a “Swiffer”, which, of course, she does not shake out in the hallway. [ 8 ] Ms. Baron’s allegations regarding the state of Ms. Fisher’s condominium unit were also raised. According to Ms. Baron, the unit is filled with boxes such that it is a fire hazard and unclean. She considers Ms. Fisher a “hoarder” [1] and repeatedly told the other co- owners that Ms. Fisher lives in a pigsty.

She considers the situation to be a fire hazard. [ 9 ] Janine Brindamour, a co-owner, was informed of the statements made by Ms. Baron regarding Ms. Fisher’s unit. At Ms. Fisher’s request, she visited the unit and took photographs. [2] The photographs do show a few boxes and plastic bags, [3] mainly in the living room, but nothing to support the epithets used by Ms. Baron, according to Ms. Brindamour.

[ 10 ] Pei-Ching Ho, another co-owner, was informed of the words used by Ms. Baron to describe Ms. Fisher and the state of her unit. She requested a meeting with Ms. Baron to try to understand what was happening. At that meeting, Ms. Baron told her that Ms. Fisher’s unit is so dirty that she considers Ms. Fisher herself to be dirty. [4] [ 11 ] The state of Ms. Fisher’s unit was described to her in a letter dated May 26, 2020, signed by Ms. Baron on Le Dorado condominium letterhead. Ms. Baron started the letter by stating, “Having seen the conditions of your unit”. Yet, the evidence reveals that Ms.

Baron visited the unit on December 19, 2019, six months earlier. That is a very long time considering her claim that the state of the premises had to be reported to the city’s fire department. [ 12 ] Caroline Sabbag also testified. She is the co-owner of a unit and has been living in the building for 37 years. She has known both parties for many years. She contacted Ms. Baron by telephone in regard to Ms. Fisher because Ms. Fisher told her about the situation she had been experiencing for several months. [ 13 ] Ms. Baron asked her if she knew when Ms. Fisher had last cleaned her unit, implying that she is dirty.

She even asked her if she was aware that Ms. Fisher had stolen cutlery from her golf club. [ 14 ] Ms. Sabbag explained that Ms. Baron intimidates people. She intercepts them in the hallways. As president, she controls the board of directors. When Ms. Fisher received the letter, [5] she was quite upset and asked Ms. Sabbag to come over because she needed support and comforting in view of the situation. [ 15 ] Another incident concerns a telephone conversation between Ms. Baron and Ms. Fisher’s daughter, Harriet Zimmerman. Ms. Baron phoned Ms.

Zimmerman on May 25, 2020, and the conversation was recorded and played at the hearing. [6] Ms. Baron threatened to inform the city’s fire department, claiming that the superintendent had entered the unit in April and noted the state of the premises. According to the evidence adduced at the hearing, however, that statement is false. [ 16 ] Ms. Baron also submits that Ms. Fisher was putting everyone in danger by going out to work everyday during the pandemic and that she had three car accidents.

The evidence adduced at the hearing revealed no car accident. [ 17 ] The following discussion is disturbing: HZ: Um, and I know all about what has been going on. I know that she’s been verbally abused, so I asked that for the record you pull the file, the video tape from May 15th at 2:30, in front of elevators in the basement, and if you destroy that evidence, that you know it is evidence, that it needs to be maintained and I need a copy. So there is.

RB: Yeah right, you can get a subpoena for that lady, you can get a subpoena for that <laughing> HZ: So you know, I can get a subpoena for that RB: You go ahead please, be my guest < laughter>. [7] [ 18 ] Indeed, Ms. Fisher described an incident during which Ms. Baron again used various degrading terms to describe her and accused her of living in a pigsty. At the hearing, the defence declared that the surveillance camera video from the May 15, 2020, incident was no longer available. Yet, on June 12, 2020, further to a formal notice from Ms. Fisher’s counsel, Ms.

Baron was required to provide that video, which she did not do. [8] [ 19 ] Ms. Zimmerman explained to the Court how much the situation affected her mother, who has become much more nervous and stressed since the start of this series of events. [ 20 ] The evidence reveals that at each opportunity that arose, Ms. Baron accosted Ms. Fisher with insults against her to the point that Ms. Fisher hoped not to run into Ms. Baron in the parking lot, the hallways, or the lobby of the condominium building. Ms. Fisher even stopped going to the pool. [ 21 ] When Ms.

Fisher sent a first formal notice on January 23, 2020, [9] she simply wanted Ms. Baron to stop behaving like that with her. Ms. Baron did not stop, however, and the situation worsened, hence Ms. Fisher’s recourse to counsel in June and the sending of a second formal notice. [10] [ 22 ] It should be noted that following receipt of the June 12, 2020, formal notice, [11] Ms. Baron prepared a communiqué on June 13 that was sent to all the co-owners and that stated the following: To all Le Dorado Condominium Co-owners This is to advise that Mrs.

Esther Fisher in 1003 has instituted a lawsuit against Le Dorado Condominium and she is demanding $25,000 in damages due to a claim of harassment that is totally unfounded. Because of yet another instigation on her part, Mrs. Esther Fisher leaves the Administration with no choice but to incur more expenses that all co-owners will have to assume, as we must now seek legal advice on how to proceed against $25,000 lawsuit. This Administration as well as previous Administrations have all had to endure prolonged harassment from Mrs.

Esther Fisher for too long. [12] [ 23 ] On that date, there was no trial, and no legal proceedings had been instituted. While it is true that the June 12 formal notice was also addressed to the syndicate of co-owners, its wording is unequivocal as to the person concerned and involved – it is Ms. Baron. [ 24 ] The court record was opened on July 6, 2020, and the application is directed solely against Ms. Baron. However, at the subsequent meeting of the board of directors held on August 11, 2020, the minutes stated the following:

Legal issues – New/ongoing #1003 (Plaintiff) lawsuit against RB (Defendant): • Le Dorado liability insurance coverage for this claim was denied since it is personal against RB and not the Syndicate. That is why #1003 is not pursuing the demand letter since the demand letter is vs Le Dorado. … • The Syndicate disputes all accusations levied against an administrator as all actions taken by RB reflect decisions taken by Syndicate.

ACTION : Minutes of Meeting to reflect that monies personally disbursed by RB for all legal fees incurred will be reimbursed by the Syndicate to RB once a legal decision has been rendered. [13] [ 25 ] During a telephone conversation with Ms. Sabbag, Ms. Baron asked her to intervene with Ms. Fisher regarding the pending legal proceedings in the following terms: “Tell the bitch to stop it”. [ 26 ] On June 23, 2020, Ms. Baron insulted Ms. Fisher again by stating that she was going to contact the Société d'assurance automobile du Québec to have her driver’s licence taken away.

Of course, she never acted on that threat. [ 27 ] On October 31, 2020, while Ms. Fisher was in the condominium building elevator, the doors opened on Ms. Baron. The verbal assault began on Ms. Fisher. Ms. Baron said, “You’re still here … I’ll make your life so miserable that you’ll sell your apartment and move”. [ 28 ] In December 2020, there was an election for the board of directors of the syndicate of co-owners. A notice was provided to all the co-owners, either by email or on the doorstep. [14] It was Ms. Baron who distributed the notices on the doorstep of the few co- owners, including Ms.

Fisher, who do not have email addresses. Curiously, only Ms. Fisher did not receive the notice. [ 29 ] Pei-Ching Ho asking about the situation. [15] She received a response the next day, [16] invoking a mistake. It is obvious from all the evidence adduced before the Court that Ms. Baron does not want Ms. Fisher on the board of directors of the syndicate of co- owners. [17] As a result, Ms. Fisher did not have the opportunity to run as a candidate for the board of directors of the syndicate of co- owners, nor even to vote for any candidate whatsoever.

In fact, the candidates were elected by acclamation because no position had two candidates. Since December 15, 2020, Ms. Baron no longer sits on the board of directors of the syndicate of co-owners. [18] The defence and its probative value [ 30 ] In defence, Ms. Baron submits that she was not acting personally, but always for the board of directors of the syndicate of co- owners and in her capacity as president. As for the statements she is alleged to have made, she considers them casual, inconsequential discussions. [ 31 ] During her testimony before the Court, Ms.

Baron tried to minimize her remarks, going so far as to claim that using the word “bitch” is not an insult. Only during a very skillful cross-examination did she finally admit the obvious, that “bitch” is an insult. [ 32 ] In

summary, she admitted the events corroborated by third-party witnesses, while trying to reduce the impact of her remarks, and try to deny the events where no third parties were present, such as the altercation in front of the elevator. The Court concludes that when faced with the evidence, Ms. Baron cannot effectively deny it because third parties testified in support of Ms. Fisher’s testimony. Moreover, no witness testified in defence in support of Ms. Baron’s argument concerning the use of such terms during causal conversations. [ 33 ] The state of Ms.

Fisher’s condominium unit, as illustrated by the photographs accompanying the formal notice dated June 12, 2020, [19] was denied in the following terms in an email dated June 17, 2020: [20] As concerns the pictures that you included of your client’s unit, we have been advised by our client that such pictures are in no way reflective of the state of said unit witnessed by the building’s superintendent prior to the taking of the aforementioned pictures. [ Emphasis added. ] [ 34 ] The superintendent did not testify in support of that statement.

The Court draws a negative inference from that fact. [ 35 ] The Court gives no credibility to Ms. Baron’s version. All of her testimony was a lack of credibility. She tried to minimize the evidence when third-party witnesses corroborated Ms. Fisher’s version and limited herself to denying what was not supported by a third- party witness. [ 36 ] Her attitude during the hearing showed an obvious lack of respect for Ms. Fisher and carelessness as to the significance of her remarks and her general attitude as well as the impact of her behaviour on Ms. Fisher.

To claim in all seriousness under oath that to call another woman a “bitch” is not an insult and to then finally admit it in cross-examination entails the least possible credibility that could be given to her testimony at the hearing. Issues 1. Did Ms. Baron act in her capacity as president of the board of directors of the syndicate of co-owners such that the application is inadmissible for having been directed against the wrong person, and if not, did Ms. Baron commit a fault giving rise to liability? 2. What are the compensable damages suffered in this case? (

a) Moral damages (

b) Punitive damages

(

c) Extrajudicial fees Analysis 1. Did Ms. Baron act in her capacity as president of the board of directors of the syndicate of co-owners such that the application is inadmissible for having been directed against the wrong person, and if not, did Ms. Baron commit a fault giving rise to liability? [ 37 ] The application is directed against Ms. Baron personally. Her defence is that she acted in her capacity as the president of the board of directors of the syndicate of co-owners.

She is thus trying to hide behind the corporate veil so as not to answer personally for the alleged acts. [ 38 ] The syndicate of co-owners has a distinct juridical personality, [21] and it represents the co-owners as a body.

It has full enjoyment of civil rights [22] and the capacity to exercise all of its rights. [23] The syndicate acts through the board of directors and the general meeting of the members, [24] and it is represented by its senior officers. [25] The senior officers and the directors of the legal person are considered its mandataries, and they are bound to act “with prudence and diligence” in that capacity and also to act “with honesty and loyalty in the interest of the legal person.” [26] [ 39 ] In this respect, the Code also provides that legal persons are distinct from their members. [27] It also sets out the situations that may justify lifting the corporate veil in

article 317 C.C.Q., which states: 317.

The juridical personality of a legal person may not be invoked against a person in good faith so as to dissemble fraud, abuse of right or contravention of a rule of public order . [ 40 ] Directors must also act in the interest of the legal person. [28] A mandatary who exceeds the limits of his or her mandate may be held personally liable for his or her acts. [29] When extracontractual liability is sought, a director of a legal person has no immunity, and it is not necessary to lift the corporate veil. [30] In this respect, the Court of Appeal of Quebec stated: [ translation ] [69] That being said, the fact remains that the director of a legal person has no immunity when their liability is sought under the rules of extracontractual liability.

In such case, issues regarding the lifting of the corporate veil are irrelevant. If, by his or her facts or actions, the director contributed to a fault committed by the corporation, he or she is personally liable. [ 41 ] If the fault is purely personal, it goes without saying that the director incurs only his or her personal liability. In the Court’s view, that is the case here because the actions alleged against Ms.

Baron are purely personal, and in committing them, she incurred her extracontractual liability. [ 42 ] The Court cannot endorse the argument that a campaign of intimidation, harassment, and the use of insults against a person constitutes, for a president of a board of directors, acting in accordance with her mandate and in that capacity. [ 43 ] If the actions taken by Ms. Baron reflect the decisions taken by the syndicate as indicated in the minutes of the meeting held on August 11, 2020, [31] the Court cannot accept that this conduct could cover the language used by Ms.

Baron or her overall conduct. [ 44 ] In addition, no member of the board of directors presided by Ms. Baron testified as a witness for the defence that Ms. Baron’s conduct was determined by the board of directors of the syndicate of co-owners or that she was acting in her capacity as president. Obviously, nobody would endorse such conduct. The Court draws a negative inference from the fact that no member of the board of directors testified for the defence in support of the argument presented by Ms. Baron. [ 45 ] Through her insults and the disparaging remarks she made against Ms. Fisher, Ms.

Baron incurred her personal liability. The use of the epithets “bitch”, “cocksucker” and others were her personal actions. Such vocabulary serves no purpose for the legal person. Ms. Baron engaged in a genuine campaign of denigration and intimidation against a respectable woman, without any lawful excuse. [ 46 ] Only the issue of the state of her condominium unit may be of interest to the co-ownership as a whole.

But the evidence on a balance of probabilities reveals that the premises posed no fire hazard, nor were they dirty to the point of justifying the intervention of the board of directors of the legal person or, obviously, of Ms. Baron. In addition, had that been the case, the six-month period between her visit of the unit and her sending of the letter does shows that she was not acting in the interest of the legal person. [ 47 ] The Court therefore finds that the members of the board of directors would not have testified in support of Ms. Baron. It is clear that nobody on the board of directors gave Ms.

Baron the mandate to act as a persecutor or to insult and intimidate Ms. Fisher every time she crossed her path in the common areas. Nobody gave Ms. Baron the mandate to tarnish Ms. Fisher’s reputation, to say that she lived in a pigsty, that she stole cutlery from her golf club, etc. [ 48 ] Ms. Baron, by her wrongful acts, thus incurred her personal extracontractual liability, giving rise to compensation. 2. What are the compensable damages suffered in this case? (

a) Moral damages [ 49 ] The civil law allows for compensation of non-pecuniary loss as objective compensation for interference with a legitimate interest. The absence of economic value or tangibility does not prevent reparation of the injury. It is the objective injury that must be compensated, and to do so, the Court must assess it. [ 50 ] Moral damages seek to compensate the person who suffers injury in the nature of stress, trouble, and inconvenience, which remain generic terms. No two people have the same level of sensitivity or emotion. There is therefore a degree of subjectivity that the

Court must weigh and even rule on. [ 51 ] As difficult as the process may be because many elements remain intangible, it must be undertaken to establish the non- pecuniary damages. The Supreme Court recommends a combined conceptual, personal, functional, and comparative approach. [32] [ 52 ] Moreover, in cases of reputation damaged by defamatory statements, one of the questions the Court must ask is whether an ordinary person now has less esteem for the victim of such statements. [ 53 ] In this case, the testimony of Ms. Ho is useful on this point.

She was so concerned by the rumours that she requested a meeting with the president of the syndicate because she wanted to be sure. [ 54 ] The statements made constitute a full-fledged attack, far removed from a mere comment. They were repeated. The situation continued for several months, even a few years. The social community was targeted, that is, the co-owners of the building – the people who live in the same building as Ms. Fisher. Living in a building held in co-ownership is a lifestyle that may be characterized as communal or social.

The co-owners exercise their rights in a special collective context. [ 55 ] It should be remembered that Ms. Fisher is over 90 years old and still in charge of her distribution business, where she continues to work every day. Ms. Fisher explained how she felt when she would arrive home. She was worried and would try to avoid crossing paths with Ms. Baron in the common areas of the parking lot, in the hallways, and in the elevator until she reached the door to her condominium unit. Her daughter, Ms. Zimmerman, also testified on the effects this situation had on her mother. [ 56 ] Several judgments submitted by Ms.

Fisher’s counsel award moral damages of $10,000 in similar cases, [33] while other judgments award $5,000 or $4,000. [34] [ 57 ] The Court is of the view that an amount of $10,000 in moral damages is reasonable in the particular circumstances of this case. (

b) Punitive damages [ 58 ] In her application, Ms. Fisher seeks $15,000 in punitive damages in view of the wrongful conduct and the intentional interference with her rights. [ 59 ] In this regard,

article 35 C.C.Q. states: 35. Every person has a right to the respect of his reputation and privacy. The privacy of a person may not be invaded without the consent of the person or without the invasion being authorized by law. [ 60 ]

Section 4 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms states: Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation. [ 61 ] In the event of unlawful interference with a right protected by the Charter ,

section 49 provides: 49. Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom. In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the tribunal may, in addition, condemn the person guilty of it to punitive damages. [ 62 ] The Court notes that Ms. Baron did not apologize and even denied the obvious when she stated at the hearing that the use of the word “bitch” is not an insult. [ 63 ] The Court is convinced from all the evidence adduced that there has been unlawful and intentional interference with a right protected by

section 4 of the Quebec Charter . It is therefore appropriate to award punitive damages, which are intended, in particular, to make an example of the situation so as to denounce it and ensure that it does not happen again. [ 64 ] As stated above, living in a building held in co-ownership is a lifestyle that can be characterized as communal or social. The co- owners are a small group of people who share several common interests and regularly spend time together in a particular context, that of co-ownership. [ 65 ] Ms. Baron’s conduct and her contempt for Ms.

Fisher and for the fundamental rules of life in co-ownership justify awarding punitive damages, which after having analyzed similar cases, the Court fixes at $8,000. [35] (

c) Extrajudicial fees [ 66 ] Ms. Fisher claims $17,012.85 in extrajudicial fees incurred by her counsel as a result of Ms. Baron’s conduct. [ 67 ] In principle, it is difficult to compensate the time and energy spent preparing a court case against a wrongdoer because only abuse of procedure gives rise to compensation. [36] The Court must therefore examine whether there has been abuse of procedure entitling Ms. Fisher to this claim. [ 68 ] Abuse of procedure must be analyzed within the legal framework of the Code of Civil Procedure .

That framework includes the preliminary provision, which defines the foundation as follows: This Code is designed to provide, in the public interest, means to prevent and resolve disputes and avoid litigation through appropriate, efficient and fair-minded processes that encourage the persons involved to play an active role. It is also designed to ensure the

accessibility, quality and promptness of civil justice, the fair, simple, proportionate and economical application of procedural rules, the exercise of the parties’ rights in a spirit of co-operation and balance, and respect for those involved in the administration of justice. [ Emphasis added .] [ 69 ] The prevention and resolution of disputes is an important element of the foundation of civil procedure.

Article 18 C.C.P. provides: 18. The parties to a proceeding must observe the principle of proportionality and ensure that their actions, their pleadings, including their choice of an oral or a written defence, and the means of proof they use are proportionate, in terms of the cost and time involved, to the nature and complexity of the matter and the purpose of the application. Judges must likewise observe the principle of proportionality in managing the proceedings they are assigned, regardless of the stage at which they intervene.

They must ensure that the measures and acts they order or authorize are in keeping with the same principle, while having regard to the proper administration of justice. [ 70 ] While it is true that the proceeding starts with the filing of the originating application (art. 100 C.C.P . ) , the foundations of civil procedure strongly encourage the parties to a dispute to reach an agreement before resorting to the courts.

Article 148 C.C.P., which states that the parties must indicate in the case protocol “the consideration given to private dispute prevention and resolution processes” is an illustration of this.

The legislature’s intention is to encourage the parties to avoid the judicialization of disputes and prevent litigation. [ 71 ] The logical consequence is that following receipt of a formal notice requesting an end to blameworthy conduct, non-compliance with that request is akin to an abuse of procedure committed by the person who does not comply and continues to engage in such conduct, thereby forcing the institution of legal proceedings and the holding of a trial, like in this case. [ 72 ] The facts of this case as a whole establish that Ms. Fisher requested that Ms. Baron’s conduct in her regard cease.

That was in fact the sole purpose of the January 23, 2020, formal notice. [37] But the situation did not improve, and Ms. Fisher was required to seek the services of counsel, who sent a formal notice to the same effect on June 12, 2020. [38] [ 73 ] In that formal notice, Ms. Fisher’s counsel asked Ms. Baron to cease all communication with and refrain from approaching his client in any manner whatsoever and informed her that if any communication was necessary, it should be addressed to him. Yet the evidence shows that, on the contrary, the situation did not improve. [ 74 ] The telephone conversation Ms.

Baron had with co-owner Ms. Sabbag, during which she stated, “Tell the bitch to stop it” in reference to the legal proceedings, shows a totally contemptuous attitude towards Ms. Fisher’s fundamental rights. Ms. Baron’s attitude during her testimony at the hearing was particularly eloquent in regard to how little respect she has for Ms. Fisher and her right to dignity, her honour, and her reputation. [ 75 ] Moreover, the defence presented does not stand up to minimal analysis and has no legal basis.

Claiming that she was always acting as a director of the board of directors of the legal person to permit herself to use such language is simply contrary to common sense. The defense is clearly abusive, unfounded and intended to delay. [ 76 ] In the Court’s view, Ms. Fisher had no other choice but to bring these legal proceedings and see them through to the end to ensure respect for her fundamental rights, which were deliberately infringed by Ms. Baron.

Her recklessness in regard to the acts she committed, the formal notices that were previously addressed to her, and these legal proceedings resulted in a hearing during which she did not even show any awareness of the faults she committed. [ 77 ]

Article 54 C.C.P . provides: 54 . On ruling on whether a judicial application or pleading, including one presented under this division, is abusive, the court may order a provision for costs to be reimbursed, order a party to pay, in addition to legal costs, damages for any injury suffered by another party, including to cover the professional fees and disbursements incurred by that other party , or award punitive damages if warranted by the circumstances. [ Emphasis added .] [ 78 ] There is no doubt in the Court’s view that this is a case giving rise to

article 54 C.C.P. Futhermore, in the civil law tradition, direct damage is compensable. [39] In this case, the direct damage results from the introduction of legal proceedings and the holding of a two-day trial and the $17, 012.85 in extrajudicial fees. [ 79 ] In view of all these reasons, the Court finds that there has been abuse of procedure and grants the application for reimbursement of extrajudicial fees in the amount of $17,012.85. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: CONDEMNS Rhonda Baron to pay Esther Rosenfeld Fisher the amount of $35,012.85 with interest at the legal rate as of January 23, 2020, plus the additional indemnity under

article 1619 C.C.Q . ;

THE WHOLE, with legal costs. ___________________________ LOUIS RIVERIN, J.C.Q. Mtre Robert Pancer Counsel for the plaintiff Mtre Jean Trottier Counsel for the defendant Dates of hearing: May 27 and 28, 2021