2022 QCCQ 1417, 2022 QCCQ 1417

Moore (Dr. Karl Moore) c. City of Westmount 2022 QCCQ 1417 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL "Civil Division" N° : 500-32-709755-195 DATE : March 23, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ KARL MOORE doing business under the name of Dr. Karl Moore Plaintiff c.

CITY OF WESTMOUNT Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff claims the deductible under his insurance policy of $5,000 following a flood which occurred in his basement. He holds the Defendant City of Westmount responsible for this flooding, hence, the obligation to reimburse the deductible. [ 2 ] The Defendant does not deny that a flood occured, however it denies having any responsibility as it committed no fault. [ 3 ] The facts are not contested.

The loss occurred in February 2019, Assurances Fort, the Plaintiff’s insurer paid for the damages to the Plaintiff’s basement totalling $17, 743.74, less of $5 000, for the deductible [1] . [ 4 ] Within the prescribed delay, the Defendant was advised of the claim. [ 5 ] Kaouther Saadi, Defendant’s representative provides the Court with the report by Service Pierre Goulet [2] , a third party mandated by the Defendant to detect any occurrences in its sewage system. [ 6 ] As appears from these reports, the Defendant is advised of any situation which may occur to this system. [ 7 ] Miss Saadi adds that the flood in the Plaintiff’s basement was caused by a break in the secondary pipe connected to the City of Montréal’s main sewage system. [ 8 ] The Defendant acknowledges that the sewage system is old and in fact will be entirely replaced on Greene Avenue in 2022, where the Plaintiff’s residence is located. [ 9 ] The caselaw [3] has interpreted

Article 1465 of the Civil Code of Québec which provides: Autonomous act of thing 1465. The custodian of a thing is bound to make reparation for injury resulting from the autonomous act of the thing, unless he proves that he is not at fault. [ 10 ] A presumption is established under this Article. Someone who wishes to benefit from this presumption must establish 1. The autonomous act of the thing, 2. That a damage was sustained, 3. That the damage was caused by the autonomous act of the thing and 4. That the Defendant is the custodian of the thing. [ 11 ] In the matter of Dicaire c. Chambly (Ville de) , the Court of Appeal interpreted

Article 1465 C.C.Q . and stated that the presumption is not a presumption of liability but of fault. [ 12 ] To rebutt himself from this presumption, the custodian must show that he did not commit a fault. He is under an obligation of means and not of result. [ 13 ] The Court of Appeal in Dicaire adds: Pour se dégager de sa responsabilité, la défenderesse doit démontrer qu’elle a pris les moyens raisonnables pour prévenir le fait générateur du dommage. Elle peut s’exonérer par une simple preuve d’absence de faute. La norme de conduite est celle de la personne prudente et diligente placée dans les mêmes circonstances.

[REPRODUCTION INTÉGRALE] [ 14 ] In the matter of Montréal (Ville de) c. Compagnie d’assurance Coseco the Court of Appeal states [4] : Le gardien doit alors prouver qu’il a pris les moyens raisonnables pour prévenir le fait générateur de dommages. Il n’a pas à prouver que le préjudice était totalement impossible à éviter; il doit plutôt démontrer qu’il lui était impossible d’en empêcher la survenance par des moyens raisonnables eu égard aux circonstances. Il aura alors fait la preuve qu’il n’a commis aucune faute.

Il s’agit d’une obligation de moyen, et non de résultat. [REPRODUCTION INTÉGRALE] [ 15 ] Taking into account these comments to the present matter, the Defendant did not have the burden of proving that it prevented the leak, which would only be possible if the sewage system was replaced in its entirety, considering its age and the normal deterioration by the laps of time. [ 16 ] The Defendant has convinced the Court that it took reasonable measures in the circumstances to prevent leaks in its system. [ 17 ] The Court adds that a city or municipality is not the insurer of its citizens.

This means that it is not liable to repair every damage which may occur or reimburse its residents of all costs or damages sustained, such as in the present case, an insurance deductible. [ 18 ] The Court concludes that the Defendant did meet its burden of proof. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiff’s recourse; WITH COSTS in the amount of $154 representing the judicial stamp of the Contestation. ________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing : March 1, 2022