2016 QCCQ 3227, 2016 QCCQ 3227

Varma c. Chronopoulos 2016 QCCQ 3227 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-146134-152 DATE: April 28, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY EDWARDS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ANIL VARMA Plaintiff v.

CHRISTOPHER CHRONOPOULOS Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Anil Varma sues his ex-father-in-law Christopher Chronopoulos for $1,900 for damages to items of movable property. Mr. Chronopoulos pleads that no damages to the movable property is attributable to him. Mr. Chronopoulos also claims by Cross- Demand against Mr. Varma $2,884.48 on the basis that Mr. Varma’s legal proceedings against him are abusive.

Questions in Issue 1) Did Christopher Chronopoulos damage Anil Varma’s movable property? 2) Are Anil Varma’s proceedings an abuse of procedure? Context [ 2 ] In 2002, Mr. Varma married Mr. Chronopoulos’ daughter, Irene Chronopoulos. In December 2011, Mr. Varma and Irene Chronopoulos separated. On May 23, 2014, Mr. Varma signed a Consent Agreement which formed the basis of their eventual divorce pronounced on […], 2015. Under the Consent Agreement [1] , certain items of personal property were declared as being the ownership of Mr. Varma, including: a) 2 bicycles; b) 1 safe; c) 2 stainless steel racks.

[ 3 ] Mr. Varma testified that immediately thereafter, namely in July 2014, he went to his former residence to pick up those items. These items were outside and damaged by the snow and other exposure to the elements when they should have been in the garage. He produces several photos regarding damage to the items [2] . He took the movables. [ 4 ] He also had a La-Z-Boy chair. It was also left outside but he did not seek to claim ownership or take it but instead abandoned it. Mr. Varma claims no damages for the chair. [ 5 ] Mr.

Varma testifies that when he complained to his ex-wife about the damage, she said that her father had put the items outside. [ 6 ] At trial, Mr. Chronopoulos stated that he was in no way involved in moving any items outside the garage. His daughter asked him only to disassemble the steel racks. He did so and tied them together and left them in the garage. [ 7 ] Irene Chronopoulos testified that she put the racks outside on the day before they were to be picked up. As for the bikes, she stated that they had been outside under the back yard balcony for years before they were picked up.

Irene Chronopoulos also stated that it is where Mr. Varma had left them when they first separated in December 2011. This was also her version for the safe. Mr. Varma stated that the safe was left in his bedroom. Analysis and Decision 1) Did Christopher Chronopoulos damage Anil Varma’s property? [ 8 ] There is no proof of any fault under

Article 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec for which Mr. Chronopoulos should be held liable. His only involvement was in disassembling the racks. It may or may not be that Irene Chronopoulos did not properly take care of these items while they were under her effective custody. But that is not a fault of Mr. Chronopoulos and he is the only defendant in these proceedings. [ 9 ] As Mr. Varma has not proven any fault on the part of Mr. Chronopoulos, the claim will be dismissed. [ 10 ] Furthermore, as Mr.

Varma has not tried to clean and use any of the damaged items, it may well be that all or at least a significant part of the rust or other damage is superficial in nature and could have been removed, especially soon after picking up the items. As such, there are no proven and verifiable damages on the part of Mr. Varma. 2) Are Anil Varma’s proceedings an abuse of procedure? [ 11 ] Mr. Varma states that some other witnesses who were not called by him support his version of events that Mr. Chronopoulos was involved in the placing of the items outside.

However, as these other witnesses did not appear at Court, there is no proof in that regard. With regard to the allegation of abusive proceedings, the present judicial demand is borderline but the Court will give Mr. Varma the benefit of the doubt that he had no deliberate intent to abuse the judicial process and will not grant damages in that regard. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Anil Varma’s claim;

WITH COSTS in favour of Christopher Chronopoulos limited to the Court Stamp paid by Defendant, namely $95.50; DISMISSES Christopher Chronopoulos’ Cross-Demand; WITHOUT COSTS . __________________________________ Jeffrey Edwards, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: April 1, 2016