2014 QCCQ 1823, 2014 QCCQ 1823

Forghani c. Liebman 2014 QCCQ 1823 COURT OF QUÉBEC « Small Claims Court » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL LOCALITÉ OF MONTRÉAL «Civil Division» N° : 500-32-125802-100 DATE : February 28 th , 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONORABLE SYLVIE LACHAPELLE, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ FARNAZ FORGHANI Plaintiff c.

IRWIN LIEBMAN Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff, Mrs.

Farnaz Forghani ("Forghani") retained the services of Defendant, Me Irwin Liebman ("Me Liebman") for a matter involving alleged scientif misconduct committed by Forghani's supervisor. [ 2 ] Forghani was concerned that the publication of her findings were being impeded and Me Liebman was instructed to look at possible remedies. [ 3 ] Forghani asks for the reimbursement of $4,565.23 she paid to Me Liebman as she is not satisfied with the services rendered. [ 4 ] Me Liebman contests Forghani's claim.

He argues that Forghani signed an agreement ( D-1 ) on September 17, 2008 confirming a fee of $450 per hour plus disbursements plus taxes and also confirming the sum of $4,000 plus taxes in respect of preliminary review of the file.

The facts [ 5 ] After having reviewed the proceedings, the exhibits and having heard the testimonies, the Court retains the following relevant facts. [ 6 ] Forghani is disatisfied with the work performed by Me Liebman for the reasons summarized as follows: • Contract D-1 refers to false statement more specifically that the matter was discussed at several meetings, which is not the case according to Forghani; • The $200 fee being included as taxes in the invoice; • Me Liebman misleading claim that he had to review a pile of documents. • Me Liebman contradictory statement of that he was awaiting Forghani's communication, as it appears from Me Liebman's letter of October 21st, 2008; • Me Liebman apparent eagerness on finding out how Forghani would like to deal with the situation. [ 7 ] Forghani testified that when she was at the end of her PHD, she suspected that her supervisor was falsifying datas.

She would have informed her mentor who would have ignored her complaints as also did the Chairman of the university. [ 8 ] Then, she met with Me Liebman to explain the situation and to transmit the documentation asking the latter to advise her. [ 9 ] Regarding the contract D-1 for the fees, Forghani testified that Me Liebman had written it in front of her. She stated that she was very naïve and did not read it. She now realizes that some statements are not true.

It is written on the contract "I authorize Liebman & Associés to review the matter discussed at several meetings." [ 10 ] According to Forghani, parties never discussed as Me Liebman was not questioning and that there was no several meetings.

[ 11 ] Forghani also testified that she did not read D-1 "because I trust he only put the hourly rate." [ 12 ] Forghani precised that she transmitted the documents to Me Liebman at his request but these documents were not to read according to her. [ 13 ] After Me Liebman received the documents, Forghani was surprised by Me Liebman's request to write him a 500 words

summary. Anyhow, she did her best to do as clear as possible and referring to certain documents. [ 14 ] Forghani contacted the Barreau "because Me Liebman's behavior was very strange to her." [ 15 ] According to Forghani, Me Liebman gave false information to the Barreau in the course of the investigation.

"Me Liebman had not studied the documents as he said he did." [ 16 ] Then, Forghani lost confidence in the Barreau and for this reason, she decided not to bring her case to arbitration. [ 17 ] Me Liebman practises law for more than 30 years. [ 18 ] He testified that he met Forghani on two (2) occasions. [ 19 ] As Forghani was raising very serious allegations against her university, he asked Forghani to provide all documentation which proves allegations. [ 20 ] In the course of the meeting on September 17th, 2008, Forghani would have asked Me Liebman if he could tell how much it is going to cost to look through all this. [ 21 ] Me Liebman answered it was difficult to say and as Forghani insisted, he therefore indicated on D-1 : "I have received no warranties of any nature, nor any estimates, except $4,000 plus taxes minimum preliminary review." [ 22 ] The day after, Forghani gave Me Liebman $4,200. [ 23 ] Me Liebman went through all the documents.

As for him, it was complicated, he asked Forghani to summarize what she sees as a problem. [ 24 ] Me Liebman precise that his mandate was to first read the documents and after they would meet.

He would have told her they would met in approximately a month. [ 25 ] Me Liebman never heard that Forghani went to the Barreau, so he continued to read the documents. [ 26 ] Me Liebman prepared a bill dated October 21st, 2008 ( P-6 ) for the amount of $4,565.23 from which he deducted $4,200 received from Forghani leaving a balance due of $365.23. [ 27 ] Me Liebman precised on that bill that the fees of $4,000 are "as per Agreement of September 17, 2008". [ 28 ] On December 22nd, 2009, Forghani paid the balance of $365.23 precising that "the payment is not an acknowledgment of services rendered.

The present payment is to prevent any legal action against me." [ 29 ] Me Liebman testified that he spent sixteen (16) hours as it is described on Exhibit D-3 to review the documents provided by Forghani. Thus, in charging her $4,000 for the preliminary review of the documents, he mentioned he underestimated the time spent in studying. [ 30 ] When Me Liebman sent his bill, he asked Forghani on the covering letter to call him but she did not.

"My intention was to sit down with her and discuss." Judgment [ 31 ] The agreement dated September 17, 2008 ( D-1 ) specifically and clearly confirms a fee of $450 per hour, plus disbursements, plus taxes and specify also the payment of the sum of $4,000 plus taxes in respect of preliminary review of the file. [ 32 ] Me Liebman testified that he asked Forghani for all the documentation because he wanted to read it before meeting with Forghani in order to eventually advise her on possible remedies. [ 33 ] Forghani's allegations of scientific misconduct from members of a well-known university are very serious one and Me Liebman had all reasons to be very prudent before taking any steps in that file and one of them was to read the documents first. [ 34 ] The Court believes Me Liebman that he did read the documents based on his credible testimony and also based on his handwritten notes reporting day by day his time spent in studying file (Exhibit D-3 ). [ 35 ] Thus, the Court concludes that Me Liebman was justified to bill Forghani the amount of $4,565.23 as described on P-6 as that bill was prepared according to terms of the agreement D-1 . [ 36 ] Forghani's argument that she did not read D-1 because she taught that Me Liebman was only referring to his hourly rate of $450, suggesting that she did not agree to pay $4,000 for a preliminary review is not credible since the proof reveals that Forghani paid $4,000 the day after she signed the agreement.

[ 37 ] Furthermore, the fact that Forghani did not read the agreement although she signed it, is, according to

Article 1400 of the Civil Code of Québec [1] (« C.c.Q. ») an inexcusable error which does not constitute a defect of consent. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Motion Introductory of Suit. WITH COSTS . __________________________________ SYLVIE LACHAPELLE, J.C.Q. Hearing date: October 22 nd , 2013