2013 QCCQ 3057, 2013 QCCQ 3057

Honigmann c. Dorval (City of) 2013 QCCQ 3057 COURT OF QUEBEC "Small Claims Division" CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division N° : 500-32-121321-105 DATE : February 12, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ KARIN HONIGMANN AND ANDREW LYNES Plaintiffs v.

CITY OF DORVAL ET AL Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] GIVEN the evidence; [ 2 ] WHEREAS plaintiffs are suing defendants, in damages, "to recoup the cost of a carport that was built and subsequently demolished at their residence, […], Dorval" (application of January 25, 2010); [ 3 ] WHEREAS , in their letter dated June 16 th , 2009, plaintiffs admit the following: "We filed for a permit and met with Paul Duchesne, Division Chief of the Urban Planning department who reviewed our application and plans and informed us that we did not have the minimum required width on our property for the construction"; [ 4 ] WHEREAS , on November 5, 2008, plaintiff Honigmann filed a "Demande de dérogation mineure", with a view to obtain a permit to build a carport on her property (exhibit D-4); [ 5 ] WHEREAS , on November 19, 2008, defendant City refused to grant Honigmann the requested permit; [ 6 ] WHEREAS , on December 1, 2008, plaintiffs spoke with the City's Paul Duchesne; [ 7 ] WHEREAS plaintiffs allege that they were mislead by Duchesne, at that time; [ 8 ] WHEREAS , according to plaintiffs, Duchesne told them that if they went ahead and built the carport, the City would not enforce zoning by-law 1391-A-91 and demand that they demolish the carport; [ 9 ] WHEREAS , at trial, Duchesne had no recollection of having said any such thing to plaintiffs; [ 10 ] WHEREAS , be that as it may, when plaintiffs proceeded to have the carport erected on their property, on December 1, 2008, they knew fully well that they were doing so illegally and, more specifically, in contravention of zoning by-law 1391-A-91 (exhibit D-2); [ 11 ] WHEREAS there is no evidence of fault on defendants' parts; [ 12 ] WHEREAS , furthermore, defendant Duchesne was acting for and on behalf of the City and not in his personal capacity; [ 13 ] WHEREAS defendants cannot be held liable to reparation for the injury incurred by plaintiffs through their own fault; [ 14 ] WHEREAS only plaintiffs, who knowingly and impetuously acted against the law, are responsible for the costs, trouble and inconvenience which they incurred as a direct result of their actions.

WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiffs' application, with costs.

__________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Date of hearing : October 16, 2012