2013 QCCQ 9263, 2013 QCCQ 9263

Crandall c. Grevatt 2013 QCCQ 9263 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD LOCALITY OF COWANSVILLE Civil Division No. 455-32-003603-114 DATE: June 26, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SERGE CHAMPOUX J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ EARL CRANDALL Plaintiff v.

DOUG GREVATT Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff is claiming $1500 as compensation for the loss of property that belongs to him and that the defendant is allegedly detaining without right. The defendant contends that the list provided by the plaintiff is inaccurate and that he has never refused to return what he had to the plaintiff. [ 2 ] In February 2011, the plaintiff and Lynda Rumsby separated. Ms. Rumsby was a lessee in a building owned by the defendant, Mr.

Grevatt. Earl Crandall and Lynda Rumsby were married and have children. They have reportedly been divorced for many years, but resumed living together shortly before 2011. However, living together gradually and significantly deteriorated their relationship. [ 3 ] The evidence indicates that, as far as Doug Grevatt was concerned, it was Lynda Rumsby who had been his lessee for many years. She is, in fact, still living in the same building. When Earl Crandall went to live in the home of Lynda Rumsby, the defendant hired him as caretaker.

He would remove snow in the winter, mow the lawn in the summer and do a few small jobs. [ 4 ] At the time, he had access to an area in the basement, where he stored a number of items.

When he left Lynda Rumsby, Earl Crandall continued, for a few months, to perform the same tasks as before for Doug Grevatt. [ 5 ] However, it was obvious that his relationship with Lynda Rumsby had seriously deteriorated, especially since, at the time, the plaintiff had a new spouse. [ 6 ] It seems that he went to the building many times to recover several of his items, but that, on those occasions, he also provoked Lynda Rumsby, particularly by going to the premises with his new spouse. [ 7 ] For these reasons, the owner of the building and defendant, Mr.

Grevatt, told the plaintiff around June 2011 to stop going to the premises, whether to recover his property or perform his tasks as caretaker. Since, at the same time, some of the property, more specifically tools, he kept in the basement had reportedly disappeared, Doug Grevatt also changed the lock to that area. [ 8 ] Earl Crandall is claiming $1500 for the property that was allegedly left on the premises.

He and his witness stated that he had a lot of difficulty talking to the defendant, but that it was also totally impossible for him to access the basement to recover his property. [ 9 ] The list of property that was filed does not contain any precise description or purchase bill, and the exact amount claimed for each item is unknown. [ 10 ] The defendant filed a list of property he says he has always wanted to give back to the plaintiff. The defendant sold the building last year and recovered the plaintiff’s property, which is now in his garage and gathering dust.

Before coming to Court, he took new pictures of it and made a new list, even adding some items, including two power washers. He also had them with him in his vehicle at the courthouse and offered to hand them over to the plaintiff right away. [ 11 ] When asked if he wanted to take them or leave them, the plaintiff, Mr. Crandall, chose to leave them, stated that he did not want them and insisted that the defendant be condemned to pay him money.

For example, regarding the power washer, the plaintiff said that he has no need for it, as he had bought another one since. [ 12 ] Doug Grevatt contends that he in fact changed the lock on the basement access only after a theft occurred, but otherwise, he has always been prepared and willing to return to the plaintiff everything that belongs to him. In his opinion, the property that the plaintiff has not recovered yet is property he is not interested in.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 13 ] Certain provisions of the Civil Code of Québec should be recalled: 2803. A person wishing to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. A person who alleges the nullity, modification or extinction of a right shall prove the facts on which he bases his allegation. 1991, c. 64, a. 2803. 2804.

Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. 1991, c. 64, a. 2804. [ 14 ] It must first be noted that it is the claimant, the plaintiff in this case, who must prove his claim. [ 15 ] To win his case, he must prove that he suffered damage, that the defendant committed a fault and that the fault is the cause of the damage. [ 16 ] In this case, even the damage is far from being clear. His description of the property lost was extremely vague.

He was unable to prove its ownership or value, except through general statements. He even refused to recover some of the property he was offered. [ 17 ] What fault, other than changing the access key for the room in the basement, did the defendant commit? Mr. Crandall himself seemed to raise the possibility that someone else might be responsible for the disappearance of the supposedly missing property. [ 18 ] Consequently, the Court does not consider that the plaintiff provided preponderant evidence on any of the components of his allegation.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 19 ] DISMISSES the plaintiff’s action. [ 20 ] THE WHOLE WITH COSTS. __________________________________ Serge Champoux J.C.Q. Date of hearing: May 13, 2013