2014 QCCQ 7783, 2014 QCCQ 7783

Fadlon c. Slutskaya 2014 QCCQ 7783 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-129185-114 DATE: August 15, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DORRY FADLON and DALIA GABBAY FADLON Plaintiffs v.

GRUNIA SLUTSKAYA and ESTATE OF THE LATE NUHEM KOHN Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiffs claim $7,000 from the Defendants, representing their portion of the repairs and other expenses owed by the Defendants, Mrs.

Grunia Slutskaya ( Slutskaya ), as co-owner of a property. [ 2 ] The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are co-owners of a property located on Clanranald Avenue, in Montreal. [ 3 ] The Plaintiff Gabbay Fadlon states that the house has had problems with the foundations for many years, starting in 2002, as appears from the work done at the time, described in the invoice made out to Dorry Fadlon and Nuhem Kohn [1] . [ 4 ] The problems resurfaced in 2008. In 2010, the Plaintiff notices cracks in the foundation. [ 5 ] On January 16, 2010, the Plaintiffs write to Mr.

Nuhem Kohn and Grunia Slutskaya listing the problems found in the building, namely the cracks in the foundation walls [2] . [ 6 ] Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiffs retain the services of Alerte Fissure, to repair the cracks at a cost of $6,659.62 paid by the Plaintiffs [3] . [ 7 ] The Plaintiffs claim from the Defendants their 50% share, namely, $3,329.31. [ 8 ] The Plaintiffs also claim $3,000 as overpayment of gas bills. They provide the Court with a spreadsheet listing the amounts paid.

According to these calculations, the Defendants paid their share, except for a short fall of $107.89. [ 9 ] Defendant Slutskaya contests the Plaintiffs’ claim on the basis that she did not authorize the repairs by Alerte Fissure. As for the claim for the gas, she states that there was an agreement that the Defendants would pay less. [ 10 ] Following the hearing, Defendant Slutskaya wrote to the Court and enclosed different invoices. The Plaintiffs replied and an exchange of letters and emails continued for sometime.

The Court did not consider these documents, as the parties had the opportunity of testifying and presenting their arguments and documentation. [ 11 ] Although the Defendant did not retain the services of Alerte Fissure, she did benefit, as co-owner of the property, of the work done to the foundation, work done to maintain the value of the property. [ 12 ] Therefore, Plaintiffs’ claim of 50% of the cost incurred is justified. [ 13 ] As for the claim with respect to the overpayment of the gas bills, the spreadsheet provided by the Plaintiffs does not constitute proper evidence that they paid more than their share.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : GRANTS in part the Plaintiffs’ action; CONDEMNS the Defendants to pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $3,329.31, with interest at the legal rate, plus the additional indemnity provided at

Article 1619 of the Civil code of Québec as of March 15, 2011, the date of the Demand Letter [4] ,

WITH COSTS , in the amount of $159 representing the judicial stamp of the Application. __________________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q.