2023 QCCQ 1831, 2023 QCCQ 1831

Allard c. Daniel 2023 QCCQ 1831 COURT OF QUÉBEC “Small Claims Division” CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF QUÉBEC LOCALITY OF QUÉBEC “Civil Division” No.: 200-32-706118-204 DATE: MARCH 1, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE CHANTAL GOSSELIN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ROBERT ALLARD Plaintiff v.

RAMZI DANIEL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ OVERVIEW [ 1 ] In March 2017, Robert Allard was mandated by Ramzi Daniel to represent him in proceedings that have been ongoing for several years contesting the expropriation of land he owns in Mont-Saint-Hilaire. [1] [ 2 ] Mr.

Allard filed an originating application for judicial review against Génivar inc., [2] the Attorney General of Quebec (Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement, de la Faune et des Parcs) and the Ville de Mont-Saint-Hilaire [3] and applied for stays of proceedings. [4] He also had to appear before the Court of Appeal and filed a notice of substitution of attorney with the Tribunal administratif du Québec. He eventually filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was refused without a hearing. In February 2018, Mr. Daniel mandated Mr.

Allard to prepare an application to disavow his former attorneys. [ 3 ] However, on March 13, 2018, Mr. Allard informed Mr. Daniel that he would no longer represent him due to his unacceptable behaviour toward his staff and some of his colleagues. [5] Mr. Allard discovered that 10 or 12 attorneys who had previously represented Mr. Daniel had also withdrawn from his files over the years. Had he known, he never would have agreed to represent him. [ 4 ] Mr. Allard filed an application in the Small Claims Division claiming $15,000 [6] from Mr. Daniel for professional services rendered but never paid. [ 5 ] Mr.

Daniel contests the application for the following reasons: • False allegations (exhibit D-1: written fee agreement); • His fees billed are unwarranted and exaggerated due to professional faults that caused him prejudice; • He lost his right to claim money from him and must refund his deposits because he breached his obligations. [ 6 ] A first hearing on the merits was held on October 16, 2022, after the coordinating judge authorized Mr. Daniel to participate in semi-virtual mode via TEAMS, but it was interrupted because Mr. Daniel would not cooperate. The Court rendered the following judgment after that hearing:

[ translation ] Québec, October 18, 2022 JUDGMENT GIVEN Robert Allard’s application; GIVEN Ramzi Daniel's contestation; GIVEN that the hearing on the merits was supposed to proceed today; GIVEN the judgments rendered in first instance on April 13, 2021, July 15, 2022, and September 26, 2022; GIVEN that the hearing was interrupted due to Mr. Daniel's technical problems; GIVEN that it was no longer possible to establish communication with Mr. Daniel; GIVEN the attempted semi-virtual hearing that was unsuccessful and thus aborted; CONSIDERING THAT Mr.

Daniel tried to dictate how the hearing should proceed without allowing the Court to conduct the hearing; CONSIDERING THAT Mr. Daniel did not respect the moments of silence requested by the Court; CONSIDERING THAT Mr.

Daniel did not facilitate and even prevented the semi-virtual hearing from being held; CONSIDERING THAT the Court is therefore required to adjourn the hearing on the merits; CONSIDERING THAT the next hearing must be held in person; FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: ADJOURNS the hearing on the merits in this case to December 16, 2022, before the undersigned judge, IN PERSON , in room 2.28 , at the Québec courthouse at 9:30 a.m . to last 5 hours ; DIRECTS the court clerk to reconvene the parties to the hearing; THE WHOLE, without legal costs. [ 7 ] On December 14, 2022, Mr.

Daniel sent a 15-page fax to “The civil clerck – small claims court, Québec City District” requesting that: • the undersigned judge recuse herself; • the file be transferred to the district of Montreal or stayed; • the hearing be stayed until final judgment has been rendered on his application filed on December 14, 2022, before the Superior Court in file 500-17-123365-226; In the alternative, • he be dispensed from attending the hearing scheduled in person and be authorized to participate by telephone or by videoconference at a later date the following year. [ 8 ] On December 15, 2022, the undersigned judge received Mr.

Daniel’s fax from the court clerk and rendered the following judgment on Mr. Daniel's requests: [ translation ] JUDGMENT GIVEN Ramzi Daniel’s request for a postponement and authorization to participate in the hearing on the merits in semi-virtual mode via TEAMS; GIVEN the copies of the medical reports submitted by Mr. Daniel dated October 14 and November 7, 2022; CONSIDERING THAT the hypertrophied prostate with which Mr. Ramzi has been diagnosed does not prevent him from participating in the hearing despite the stress experienced by any party to a trial; CONSIDERING THAT if Mr.

Ramzi considers that his health prevents him from attending the hearing, he can immediately mandate someone (who is not an attorney) to represent him under

article 542 of the Code of Civil Procedure ;

CONSIDERING THAT Mr. Ramzi was informed by the minutes of the hearing and judgment on October 18, 2022, that he must appear in person at the hearing on the merits scheduled for December 16, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. in room 2.28 at the Québec courthouse because the semi-virtual mode attempted on October 18, 2022, failed; CONSIDERING THAT the request for a postponement is therefore late; CONSIDERING THAT the request for a postponement is intended to delay; CONSIDERING THAT it is not possible for Mr.

Daniel to participate in the hearing via TEAMS in this case; CONSIDERING THAT the request for a postponement is intended solely to delay the trial for no valid reason; CONSIDERING THAT all Mr.

Daniel’s other incidental requests recently submitted may be dealt with and decided in the courtroom at the hearing on December 16, 2022; FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Ramzi Daniel’s request for a postponement; PROHIBITS Ramzi Daniel from participating in the hearing on the merits by semi-virtual mode via TEAMS or another technological means; THE WHOLE, with legal costs to follow. [ 9 ] At the hearing on the merits, the Court proceeded in Mr. Daniel’s absence. ISSUE Should Mr. Daniel pay the professional fees and disbursements claimed by Mr. Allard? [ 10 ] The Court finds that he should. Here is why.

ANALYSIS [ 11 ] Mr. Allard said that he changed law firms and that Mr. Daniel’s file, which was then closed, remained with his former firm. That is why, in his application, he referred to a verbal agreement on the fees and disbursements because he did not recall their written agreement. He acknowledged signing the agreement on fees and disbursements filed in the court record by Mr. Daniel. [7] [ 12 ] This professional fee agreement is subject to the provisions of the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec . [8] [ 13 ] The fees claimed by Mr. Allard must be fair and reasonable.

They must be warranted by the circumstances and proportionate to the services rendered. [9] [ 14 ] Fees invoiced by professionals are presumed fair and reasonable because professionals must comply with their ethical obligations. [10] [ 15 ] This presumption exists in the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec , which states that the advocate shall make proof as to his services having been required and as to the nature, duration and value thereof, but such oath may be contradicted in the same way as any other testimony. [11] [ 16 ] Mr. Daniel contests the application, and thus the burden of proof has shifted.

He must discharge his burden by proving that the professional fees invoiced by Mr. Allard are not warranted or are exaggerated. Mr. Daniel must prove the merits of his contestation on a balance of probabilities. He must therefore prove that the disputed fact is not only possible, but probable, by direct evidence, but also by the circumstances and the serious, precise and concordant inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom. [12] [ 17 ] Mr. Allard filed two invoices sent to Mr.

Daniel: Invoice date Date services rendered Fees and disbursements billed, deposits received, and unpaid balances April 20, 2017 March 21 to April 20, 2017 $8,198.84 Less deposit $5,015 Partial unpaid balance $3,184.84 February 26, 2017 April 24, 2017, to February 25, 2018 $21,819.17 Less deposit $1,501 Less deposit $5,001 Partial unpaid balance $15,317.17 Total unpaid balance $18,502.01 Reduction of the claim $15,000 [ 18 ] The invoices read by the Court set out a detailed description of the services rendered by Mr. Allard, the time spent on each act,

and the agreed hourly rate of $200 billed. [ 19 ] A typo appears in the invoice dated February 26, 2018, stating that services were rendered on June 14, 2018. Mr. Allard verbally corrected this error and replaced the date with February 14, 2018. There was no double billing for services rendered. [ 20 ] Mr. Allard’s rate is reasonable and does not appear excessive given his experience and the issues. [ 21 ] Mr. Daniel did not attend the hearing despite the judgment rendered on October 18, 2022, and the notice of hearing he received. [ 22 ] In the absence of evidence on a balance of probabilities by Mr.

Daniel in support of his position, the Court cannot conclude that the number of hours billed by Mr. Allard is exaggerated or that the services rendered were inadequate or did not correspond to the mandate given. [ 23 ] The Court finds Mr. Allard’s testimony credible. His version was consistent and supported. [13] [ 24 ] Mr. Daniel must pay for the professional services rendered by Mr. Allard between March 21, 2017, and February 25, 2018, plus the disbursements incurred detailed in the two invoices, up to the $15,000 limit claimed.

Legal costs [ 25 ] Legal costs are owed to the party that was successful. [14] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 26 ] GRANTS Robert Allard’s application IN PART ; [ 27 ] CONDEMNS Ramzi Daniel to pay Robert Allard $15,000, with interest at the legal rate plus the indemnity under

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec as of December 11, 2020; [15] [ 28 ] CONDEMNS Ramzi Daniel to pay Robert Allard $209 for legal costs; CHANTAL GOSSELIN, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: December 16, 2022