2012 QCCQ 7464, 2012 QCCQ 7464

Gauthier c. Robinson Dommages 2012 QCCQ 7464 COUR DU QUÉBEC « Division des petites créances » CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE BEAUHARNOIS LOCALITÉ DE VAUDREUIL-DORION « Chambre civile » N° : 760-32-014730-123 DATE : Le 9 juillet 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE CLAUDE MONTPETIT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ NICOLE GAUTHIER Demanderesse c.

PERRY ROBINSON Défendeur ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] VU la procédure écrite, la documentation produite et les témoignages entendus; [ 2 ] ATTENDU que la demanderesse, Nicole Gauthier, réclame du défendeur, son voisin immédiat, une somme de 7 000,00$ pour les motifs suivants énoncés à sa demande datée du 14 février 2012: «1. Applicant is the owner of a property located at [Address 1], St-Lazare since 35 years. 2.

Defendant, during summer 2011, started to cut down portions of a 35 years old tree clearly located on the Applicant property without the authorization of the Applicant. Also Defendant cut part of the hedge located on the property line existing also since 35 years. This hedge has a length of 100 feet long. 3. Defendant, during winter 2011-2012 blows the snow on the hedge and tree, damaging both of them. Also blows the snow on the Applicant house and the garret (mansarde) which is newly done in 2010. 4.

It is understood that the damage caused is causing serious prejudices to the Applicant: diminution value of the property and heritage (sentimental value) of a 35 years old tree and hedge. 5. Defendant, by his actions, is responsible of the damages caused to the Applicant property. Applicant is asking to be reimbursed for an amount of 7 000,00$. 6.

Although duly required to pay the said amount by formal notice given on November 14th, 2011 and filed as exhibit P-1, Defendant has refused/neglected to do so.» [ 3 ] ATTENDU que le défendeur, Perry Robinson, refuse de payer la somme réclamée par la demanderesse pour les motifs ainsi énoncés à sa contestation datée du 5 mars 2012: «1. My spouse Tracy Morrow and myself are the owners of the property situated at [Address 2] in the municipality of Saint- Lazare, (Lot 1 677 344), which is our residence since 2007. 2.

This property is shown on the Certificat de localisation prepared by Claude Bourbonnais when we bought the property in 2007, a copy of which is filed as Exhibit D-1. 3. Mrs Gauthier lives at [Address 1], which is the property that partially borders ours to its south-west side and is shown as lot 1 677 330 on Exhibit D-1.

4. My wife and I have always entertained very good relationships with neighbours in general and with Mrs Gauthier in particular. 5. For years, we enjoyed warm, open and ongoing communications with Mme Gauthier and it was not out of the ordinary that our daughters would to take a food plate to her or would extend some other friendship gesture, ie. inviting her to Thanksgiving and Christmas Day festive dinners which she never turned down. 6. We also very closely cooperated on a civic complaint that was brought to the Town's council in order that a vibration study be done in relation to a nearby train track. 7.

As Mrs Gauthier was living alone in her house, we often lent a helping hand on various chores and generally did that little extra when it called for shared responsibilities like springtime cleanup along our common property line. 8. As an other example of the exceptional collaboration we had, the snow removal contractor that Mrs Gauthier had hired for the winter of 2007, just didn't show up when the snow started piling up and one might remember that it was a record snowfall season. 9.

As Mrs Gauthier was in a bind during winter 2007-08, I undertook to do her snow removal that year along with my own at a fraction of the normal cost for such work, a picture of snow blower and incredible snow accumulation is filed as Exhibit D-2. 10. I could not conduct snow removal operations for Mrs Gauthier for the following years, so she reverted to hiring snow removal contractors from 2008 on. 11.

I don't know for sure what caused Mrs Gauthier's attitude to change and for lack of a better explanation, can only hint that it is health related, but towards the later half of 2011 she did quite abruptly turn sour and aggressive towards all of our household. 12. I did receive the letter P-1 but it only asks that I refrain from infringing on my neighbour's property right and Mrs Gauthier bluntly refused any further discussion. 13. Mrs Gauthier's claim is completely unfounded, she knows about it and these proceedings are clearly abusive. About the hedge trimming 14.

Everything Mrs Gauthier says about the hedge is completely false and needs to be corrected as follows:

a) As appears from the surveyor plan D-1, the hedge is not on Mrs Gauthier's side but on our property.

b) Since 2008, I have trimmed the hedges around my property and 2011 was no exception.

c) In all cases, this operation involved dead wood removal and live branches trimming as necessary to promote the hedges' growth and health.

d) I do not have to obtain my neighbour's permission to trim my hedge, but after trimming we always cleaned up the fallen debris on both side of the property line.

e) Mrs Gauthier never expressed any discomfort with such work and to the contrary was quite pleased. About the snow blowing 15. Since 2007, snow clearing in my driveway was always done in the same fashion. 16. As the dominant wind blows from East to West, most of the driveway's snow blowing is done in the opposite direction to Mrs Gauthier's property. 17. When the wind blows in the opposite direction, the snow is directed towards the property limit which means that my hedge receives part of the blowing snow – this is how it has always been done. In past years this was never a problem or concern, until now.

Exhibit D-3. 18. It is during such instances that some powder snow might have been carried by the wind up to Mrs Gauthier's house but that wouldn't certainly not cause any damage to the house. 19. I do experience exactly the same phenomenon but the other way around and much more frequently as it occurs each time Mrs Gauthier's contractor clears her driveway as he systematically blows or pushes snow from her driveway towards the hedge and on my property. 20.

Mrs Gauthier's concern with protecting my hedge against snow is quite surprising since the apparently makes no case about my completely submerged hedge with snow cleared from her driveway during winter 2008, as shown in Exhibit D-4. 21.

More recently, Mme Gauthier's current snow removal contractor, pushes the snow, which is certainly as much if not more damaging to my hedge as shown on pictures filed as Exhibits D-5 & D-6. (Her current and last year's contractor push the snow into the hedge, while her previous snow contractor blew the snow into and over the hedge into our property – which was NOT an issue with me). About the tree pruning

22. Mrs Gauthier does have a tree in the back part of her property and many of its limbs were overhanging our property, well past the hedges and property line, but in particular to the point where the tree limbs were prohibiting growth to portions of our hedge – the same hedge that Mrs Gauthier claims heritage attachment to. 23. A short period after we moved in, we met with Mrs Gauthier who kindly gave a lot of information about both our properties since she had been living there for a long period. 24.

At that time, many subjects of mutual interest were addressed, amongst which the upkeep of the tree and hedge as they appeared to have been left to themselves for years, were full of dead branches and did not look their best. 25. Further more, the tree and hedge were affecting negatively one another and an intervention was required to benefit both. 26. Mrs Gauthier gave her consent to the pruning of the tree which was done gratis and if anything, the tree is now stronger and healthier for it. About the damages claimed 27.

Mrs Gauthier's claim has no ground whatsoever as she suffered absolutely no adverse effect or damages from my interventions upon her tree, the trimming of my hedge or snow removal operations. 28. To the contrary, the tree pruning enhanced its look and could only have a favourable impact on her property's value.

CONCLUSIONS Mrs Gauthier's claim should be dismissed, with costs.» [ 4 ] ATTENDU que le Tribunal a informé les parties lors de l'audience qu'il lui est impossible de statuer sur la question des dommages causés à la haie de cèdre sans que la ligne de division de leur terrain respectif soit d'abord établie; [ 5 ] ATTENDU que le défendeur Robinson allègue que la haie est située sur son terrain et qu'il a ainsi le droit de la couper (voir son certificat de localisation); [ 6 ] ATTENDU que la demanderesse allègue que la haie a été plantée il y a plus de trente-cinq ans (1976) par son père sur la ligne de division des deux lots; [ 7 ] ATTENDU que le Tribunal réfère à la décision rendue par la Cour du Québec, division des Petites créances, dans une affaire similaire, soit Gauvreau c.

Clec'h où il est mentionné [1] : «Pour qu'une créance soit admissible à la Division des petites créances, elle doit porter sur un droit personnel et non sur un droit réel.

Cette Division n'a pas compétence lorsque les titres de propriété sont ambigus ou litigieux ou lorsque la ligne de séparation entre deux terrains est contestée par une des parties.» [ 8 ] Conséquemment, la division des Petites créances n'a pas compétence pour statuer sur la réclamation de la demanderesse concernant sa haie de cèdre. [ 9 ] Au surplus, la demanderesse n'a présenté aucune preuve sur la nature, l'étendue et les coûts de réparation ou de remplacement de cette haie. [ 10 ] Cette

partie de la réclamation de la demanderesse est par conséquent rejetée. [ 11 ] ATTENDU que la demanderesse a mentionné qu'elle ne réclamait pas de dommages pour la neige qui aurait été soufflée sur sa maison par le défendeur Robinson car ces dommages sont minimes et non réclamables de son propre aveu; [ 12 ] ATTENDU que la demanderesse Gauthier réclame également des dommages pour la coupe de branches de son orme par le défendeur Robinson; [ 13 ] ATTENDU que le défendeur Robinson reconnaît qu'il a coupé quelques branches et qu'il ne recommencera plus, croyant qu'il y était autorisé par madame Gauthier; [ 14 ] ATTENDU que le défendeur Robinson s'est fait justice lui-même et a contrevenu à l'

article 985 C.c.Q. qui se lit comme suit: «985. Le propriétaire peut, si des branches ou des racines venant du fonds voisin s'avancent sur son fonds et nuisent sérieusement à son usage, demander à son voisin de les couper; en cas de refus, il peut le contraindre à les couper.

Il peut aussi, si un arbre du fonds voisin menace de tomber sur son fonds, contraindre son voisin à abattre l'arbre ou à le redresser.» [ 15 ] ATTENDU que la demanderesse n'a produit aucune évaluation quant aux dommages que cette coupe peut avoir causés à son arbre ni sur la durée de ces dommages vu la croissance de l'arbre, ni sur la durée de vie de cet arbre; [ 16 ] ATTENDU que les photos produites par la demanderesse ne démontrent pas de dommages significatifs à l'arbre ni que la croissance ou l'espérance de vie de cet arbre est menacée;

[ 17 ] Le Tribunal, utilisant son pouvoir discrétionnaire et en tenant compte de l'aveu du défendeur qu'il a coupé quelques branches, fixe à 100,00$ les dommages-intérêts dus à la demanderesse pour la coupe illégale des branches de son orme par le défendeur à l'été 2011. [ 18 ] ATTENDU la relation de voisinage tendue qui s'est installée entre les parties, le Tribunal accueille la demande partiellement, le tout chaque

partie payant ses propres frais; PAR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL: ACCUEILLE la demande de la demanderesse en partie; CONDAMNE le défendeur, Perry Robinson, à payer à la demanderesse la somme de 100,00$ avec intérêts au taux légal, l'indemnité additionnelle prévue à l'

article 1619 C.c.Q. à compter de l'assignation du 22 février 2012; LE TOUT chaque

partie payant ses propres frais. __________________________________ CLAUDE MONTPETIT, J.C.Q. (JM2018) Date d’audience : Le 21 juin 2012

SECTION III DU RETRAIT ET DE LA DESTRUCTION DES PIÈCES Les parties doivent reprendre possession des pièces qu'elles ont produites, une fois l'instance terminée. À défaut, le greffier les détruit un an après la date du jugement ou de l'acte mettant fin à l'instance, à moins que le juge en chef n'en décide autrement. Lorsqu'une partie, par quelque moyen que ce soit, se pourvoit contre le jugement, le greffier détruit les pièces dont les parties n'ont pas repris possession, un an après la date du jugement définitif ou de l'acte mettant fin à cette instance, à moins que le juge en chef n'en décide autrement. 1994, c. 28, a. 20.