2022 QCCQ 2327, 2022 QCCQ 2327

Addai c. Desjardins Assurances générales 2022 QCCQ 2327 COURT OF QUÉBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL "Civil Division" N° : 500-32-710974-199 DATE : April 28, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ PATRICK ADDAI Plaintiff c.

DESJARDINS ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ THE OUTLINE [ 1 ] The Plaintiff claims $13,630.07 representing the expenses incurred and damages suffered following a car accident. [ 2 ] The Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the insurance policy [1] issued on his behalf was revoqued following Plaintiff’s failure to provide to the Defendant documents and information requested and the failure to completely declare the risk and all circumstances representing an aggravation of risk.

THE CONTEXT [ 3 ] In August 2018, the Plaintiff was involved in a car accident in Ontario. [ 4 ] As he was insured by the Defendant, in virtue of an automobile insurance policy issued in March 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a claim to recover the value of the vehicle, the cost to rent a temporary vehicle, as well as general damages. [ 5 ] Karel Paquette, claims adjusters, explains to the Court that when a loss occurs in Ontario, the Defendant will conduct an extensive investigation on the place of residence of an insured. Mr.

Paquette adds that as the premiums in Québec are less expensive, many insured who do not reside in the province of Québec, nevertheless obtain insurance coverage in this Province. [ 6 ] In November 2018, two forms were sent to the Defendant [2] one form for the consent for the collection, use and communication of personal information and a non-waiver agreement, signed by the Defendant on November 5, 2018, authorizing the Defendant to investigate the claim without prejudice to his right. [ 7 ] On November 21, 2018, Mr.

Paquette also sent a letter to the Plaintiff confirming the documents he requested from him [3] . [ 8 ] Following the completion of these forms, Mr. Paquette, during a telephone conversation with the Plaintiff, had a series of questions, more particularly dealing with the residence of the Plaintiff. [ 9 ] During his investigation, Mr. Paquette discovered the following: 1. In December 2017 and January 2018, the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant, but at its office in Ontario, to obtain quote, as he was considering moving to Ontario [4] ; 2. The maintenance on Plaintiff’s car was done in Ontario [5] ; 3.

The report by Equifax showed that the Plaintiff had no commercial activities in Québec [6] ; 4. The Plaintiff’ driver’s license is issued in Ontario [7] ; 5. As appears from his banking statement, from April to September 2018, all purchases made by the Plaintiff were in Ontario [8] ; 6. Initially, the Plaintiff applied to the Société de l’Assurance Automobile du Québec to obtain an indemnity for his physical injuries.

As appears from the inquiry by the Société [9] it refused to indemnify the Plaintiff, as it confirmed he was not a resident of Québec, therefore not eligible to an indemnity; 7. Following this, the Plaintiff filed an application for accidental benefits in which he listed residing at McMurchy Avenue in Brompton, Ontario [10] ; 8.

Between 2017 and 2018, the Plaintiff only worked in Ontario [11] . [ 10 ] On January 4, 2019, the Defendant once again wrote to the Plaintiff requesting that a copy of his income tax report for 2017 and all pay slips for 2017 and 2018 be provided, failing which, the Plaintiff was informed that the request for an indemnity would be denied and the file closed [12] . [ 11 ] Tanya Matte, analyst, confirms to the Court that these documents were never received by the Defendant. [ 12 ] In light of the overwhelming evidence provided by the Defendant, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff did reside at least for several months in 2017 and 2018 in Ontario, an information that he failed to disclose to the Defendant. [ 13 ] The Defendant was therefore justified in cancelling the insurance policy and denying coverage.

Defendant’s Cross-Claim [ 14 ] Following the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant reimbursed to the Plaintiff the sum of $1,432.73 representing the fees for a car rental [13] . The Defendant claims the reimbursement of this expense. [ 15 ] When cancelling the insurance policy, the Defendant owed to the Plaintiff the sum of $13.08 as appears from the calculation on the premium [14] . [ 16 ] The Defendant’s Cross-Claim is justified. [ 17 ] Proceeding to compensate these amounts, the Plaintiff owes to the Defendant the sum of $1,418.93.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claim ; WITH COSTS in the amount of $313 representing the judicial stamp of the Contestation; GRANTS the Defendant’s Cross-Claim; CONDEMS the Plaintiff Patrick Addai to pay to the Defendant Desjardins Assurances Générales the sum of $1,418.93 plus the interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided at

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec as of January 24, 2018, representing the date of the cancellation of the insurance policy; WITHOUT COST . ___________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. Date d’audience : 14 mars 2022