2013 QCCQ 12687, 2013 QCCQ 12687

O'Loughlin c. Johnson 2013 QCCQ 12687 COUR DU QUÉBEC « Division des petites créances » CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE MONTRÉAL LOCALITÉ DE MONTRÉAL « Chambre civile » N° : 500-32-127687-111 DATE : 25 octobre 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE GATIEN FOURNIER, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ JENNIFER O'LOUGHLIN Demanderesse c.

MAYA JOHNSON Défenderesse ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] La demanderesse (O'Loughlin) réclame à la défenderesse (Johnson) la somme de 7 000.00 $ qu'elle dit lui avoir prêté et que cette dernière ne lui a jamais remis malgré des demandes en ce sens. [ 2 ] Johnson soutient de son côté qu'elle a reçu cette somme au terme d'une donation.

QUESTION EN LITIGE [ 3 ] Le Tribunal doit déterminer si les montants avancés par O'Loughlin à Johnson l'ont été au terme d'un contrat de prêt ou d'un contrat de donation. LES FAITS PERTINENTS [ 4 ] O'Loughlin a déposé avec sa demande un résumé des événements qui reprend l'essentiel des faits qu'elle a relaté et des documents qu'elle a soumis dans le cours de son témoignage.

Son résumé va comme suit: Chronology of events leading to lawsuit After six years in a relationship (2004-09), Miss Maya Johnson and my son, David O'Loughlin, decided to move in together and to that end, co-purchased a home at 110 Metis, Pointe-Claire in Oct. 2009. On Sept. 25, 2009 my husband and I loaned the couple $22,800 towards the establishment of their household with the condition that the money be paid back to us if the couple did not get married (i.e., if Miss Johnson did not become our daughter-in-law).

The couple chose to put the $22,800 towards the down payment of the house, they moved into the house together as common law spouses in Oct 2009, and they became engaged to be married in Dec 2009. The wedding was planned for Aug 2011. Miss Johnson terminated the relationship with my son in early Oct 2010.

My husband and son participated in 3-4 in-person meetings with Miss Johnson, her father (Mr Errol Johnson) and her mother to determine what to do about the co-owned property (my son wanted to keep the house and Miss Johnson wanted to sell the house), and to resolve the issue of the $11,400 loan to Miss Johnson (i.e., ½ of the $22,800 loan). After repeatedly not getting clear answers about the loan from Miss and Mr Johnson, my husband, during the last in- person meeting on Nov 30, 2010, asked them directly and explicitly if Miss Johnson was going to pay back the loan. Their response was

no. Given Miss Johnson's refusal to pay back the locan, I consulted a lawyer in Dec 2010. Me Brigitte Garceau (Robinson, Sheppard, Shapiro) advised me that the settlement of the house and the pay back of the $11,400 loan were two separate issues. On our lawyer's advice, my son then moved ahead to buy Miss Johnson's share of the house from her for $13,000 (an extremely generous amount given that Miss Johnson would have lost approximatively $6000 had the house been sold on the market as she had proposed, and had she paid back the loan of $11,400 to my husband and me.

The property transfer agreement was notarized on Feb 20, 2011 – this agreement did not in any way relate to, incorporate or nullify the $11,400 loan to Miss Johnson (see notarized agreement in Attachment 11). On Feb 21, 2011, I put Miss Johnson on notice to return her half of the loan ($11,400) to us. Her father informed me by letter of Feb 24, 2011 that Miss Johnson refused to pay back the loan. I am now suing Miss Johnson for the return of $11,400. In conclusion, I loaned $11,400 to Miss Johnson on Sept 25, 2009, which she decided to put towards the down payment on a house that she co-purchased with my son.

She lived in the house with my son for one year, agreed to marry my son, and then broke off her engagement with my son in early Oct 2010. My son paid Miss Johnson $13,000 for her half-share of the house in a notarized property transfer agreement that did not relate to, incorporate or nullify her loan from her husband and me, for $11,400.

When put on demand in writing, Miss Johnson refused in writing to pay back the $11,400 so that I am now suing Miss Johnson for the $11,400. [ 5 ] Johnson a également déposé avec sa contestation un résumé des événements qui reprend l'essentiel des faits qu'elle a relaté et des documents qu'elle a soumis dans le cours de son témoignage. Son résumé va comme suit:

SUMMARY First of all, I, Ms. Maya Johnson, would like to state for the record that I consider the lawsuit brought against me by Mrs. Jennifer O'Loughlin as a form of continued harassment. After receiving a formal notice date February 21, 2011, from Mrs. O'Loughlin demanding repayment of what she claimed to be a "loan", my father, Mr. Errol Johnson, responded on my behalf, rejecting her claim and refusing any payment. He also advised Mrs.

O'Loughlin that "Maya and I do not wish to receive adn further communications from you or your son (including but not limited to e-mails, letters, faxes, text messages and/or telephone calls)." (See letter from my father to Mrs. O'Loughlin in Exhibit 1.) I began dating Mrs. O'Loughlin's son, Mr. David O'Loughlin, in July 2003. Between 2008 and 2009, we began to discuss our future, and agreed that marriage was what we both ultimately wanted. As a first step, we decided we would move in together. We discussed this with his parents, Mrs. Jennifer and Mr. Richard O'Loughlin. Mrs.

O'Loughlin proposed giving us $20,000 towards the purchase of a property, and we gratefully accepted the offer. The money was offered as a gift. At no time was there any kind of agreement, verbal or written, that the $20,000 was a "loan". There is no question that if I needed financial help to purchase a property, I most certainly would have turned to my own family for it, rather than seek money from the O'Loughlins, as it has been suggested. My father, Mr. Errol Johnson, is a Financial Security Advisor at Sun Life Financial; my mother, Mrs. Veronica Johnson, is an employee of the Lester B.

Pearson School Board, currently working as the Assistant Directo rat Place Cartier Adult Education Centre; my sister, Dr. Natasha Johnson, is a pediatrician and Assistant Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at McMaster Children's Hospital, and my second sister, Ms. Tamara Johnson is a lawyer and Labour Relations Manager at the Toronto Star. Independently, each member of my immediate family is more than financially stable. Independently or collectively, they would have been easily capable of issuing me a generous loan. After Mrs. O'Loughlin made her offer, I informed my parents that Mr.

David O'Loughlin and I intended to purchase a home, using Mrs. O'Loughlin's gift a a down payment. We subsequently made a budget, and began looking at homes with a real estate agent in the spring of 2009. Mr. David O'Loughlin and I purchased a home at […] in Pointe-Claire at the end of September 2009. We used a cheque issued to us by Mrs. O'Loughlin in the amount of $22,800 for the down payment. The amount encompassed her $20,000 gift, and $2,800 from Mr. David O'Loughlin's RRSP. (See spreadsheet prepared by Mrs. O'Loughlin in October 2010 in Exhibit 2.) Mr.

David O'Loughlin' proposed to me on December 23, 2009, and we began to plan a wedding for August 2011. We hosted an

engagement party a tour home on July 3, 2010. On September 25, 2011, I went wedding dress shopping with my mother and my sister, Ms. Tamara Johnson. Mrs. O'Loughlin was also there that day, and so was her daughter, Ms. Erin O'Loughlin, whom I had asked to be one of my bridesmaids. After trying on the dresses, the reality of my upcoming wedding truly began to sink in. I was an excited bride-to-be, very much in love and looking forward to becoming Mr. David O'Loughlin's wife. I had no idea that my life, as I knew it, was about to turn upside down in a matter of days.

On October 3, 2010, while vacationing in the Dominican Republic with my older sister, Dr. Natasha Johnson, I received a Facebook message from Ms. Taminda Smith, a woman I'd never met, describing an ongoing clandestine relationship with Mr. David O'Loughlin. What Mrs. O'Loughlin characterized, in her statement of claim, as a "brief relationship" in fact dates back to at least February 2008, and continued until March 2010 – while Mr. David O'Loughlin and I were living together, and while we were engaged. (See Facebook exchanges between Mr. David O'Loughlin and Ms. Taminda Smith forwarded to me by Ms.

Smith in Exhibit 3.) When I confronted Mr. David O'Loughlin about this woman, he initially denied being involved with her. He finally admitted to not only being involved with her, but also to having sex with her during the course of our relationship.

I had originally been planning to stay in the Dominican Republic for a full week, but given the circumstances and my emotional distress, my sister urged me to return home as soon as possible, and purchased me a ticket to allow us to travel back to Canada together, four days into my vacation. (See letter from my sister describing how the situation unfolded in Exhibit 4.) Upon returning from my vacation, I ended the relationship with Mr. David O'Loughlin. In less than two weeks, on October 17, 2010, I received an email from Mrs.

O'Loughlin asking if I would "onsider a scenario in which you sing the house over to David and we would issue a cheque to you for 4000." She also expressed "an interest in buying the appliances from you as weel (we estimate 1300 for the appliances, so the overall total for the cheque to you in that case would be 5300)." Mrs.

O'Loughlin suggested that if I were interested in that scenario, it would be helpful to "make all of this happen before the next mortgage payment is due." Attached to the email was a spreadsheet, which outlined "estimates of actual and projected costs relevant to the sale of the house on Metis". (See Attachment 2, and email sent by Mrs. O'Loughlin in Exhibit 5.) Soon after the receipt of that email, discussions began amongst our families to determine what to do about the co-owned property.

It should be noted that there were three face-to-face meetings during which we discussed the fate of 110 Metis, and on all occasions, Mrs. O'Loughlin was notably absent. While preparing for negotiations on my behalf, my father called Mr. Richard O'Loughlin and asked specifically if the $20,000 used toward the purchase of the property was a gift or a loan to me and Mr. David O'Loughlin. (It was described on the spreadsheet as a "downpayment from the O'Loughlins".) Mr. Richard O'Loughlin's response was that they, as parents, "were just trying to help them out." The next evening, Mrs.

O'Loughlin called my father and said the $20,000 "was not a gift to Maya." In December 2010, after two months of negotiations based on the spreadsheet prepared by Mrs. O'Loughlin – which included reference to the $20,000 gift – an agreement was reached between all parties concerned. I agreed to transfer my 50% interest/share in the ownership of the house in exchange for the sum of $13,000. Mrs. O'Loughlin drafted a "Promise of Agreement", which she emailed to notary France Sauve on December 16, 2010, cc'ing me, my parents, and Mr. David O'Loughlin. (See email sent by Mrs.

O'Loughlin in Exhibit 6.) On February 18, 2011, I signed the deed of transfer prepared by Mr. Sauve. Mr. David O'Loughlin signed the deed on February 21, 2011. Within 24 hours, I received a registered letter (dated February 21, 2011) from Mrs. O'Loughlin informing me that she was claiming the sum of $11,400 from me, which she described as half of the amount of a "loan" to me and her son. (See Exhibit 7.) It is important to note, that since this entire debacle began, the demand letter contained the first and only written assertion from Mrs.

O'Loughlin that the money from her was a loan; ergo, I can only conjecture that Mrs. O'Loughlin prepared the "Promise of Agreement" regarding the property transfer in bad faith, knowing that she intended to come after me for money which she would characterize as a loan after a settlement was reached, and the house was signed over to her son. In a letter dated February 24, 2011, my father responded to Mrs.

O'Loughlin's letter on my behalf, stating that the claim was refused, and that "there are absolutely no grounds for discussion or consideration of this claim", given that "an agreement was reached and accepted by all parties." (Exhibit 1.) On April 5, 2011, the day before my birthday, I received a notification indicating that there was a registered mail for me to pick up. I picked up the registered mail on April 7, 2011, which turned out to be a statement of claim from the plaintiff.

In conclusion, in September 2009, Mrs. O'Loughlin gave her son and me, jointly, $22,800 (which included $2,800 from Mr. David O'Loughlin's RRSP) towards the downpayment on a house. I lived in the house with her son for one year, and agreed to marry him when he proposed in December 2009. I broke off my engagement to him in October 2010 after learning of his relationship with another woman. After several weeks of negotiations, Mr. David O'Loughlin's family and my family reached a settlement with respect to the property and the $20,000 gift: Mr.

David O'Loughlin would keep the house; I would sign over my half-share for $13,000. This settlement was made official in a notarized property transfer agreement. Now that the (sic) she has achieved her ultimate objective of having her son assume full ownership of the property, and after agreeing to pay me $13,000 on her son's behalf, Mrs. O'Loughlin is now claiming, post settlement, that I owe her $11,400. Mrs. O'Loughlin, in fact, gave a gift of $20,000. It was not a loan; therefore, I have refused to pay Mrs. O'Loughlin that amount. I would expect that a woman as educated as Mrs.

O'Loughlin would not issue a loan for such a substantial amount of money without a written agreement, stating its terms and conditions. There was no written agreement, and Mrs. O'Loughlin's claims that a "loan" with conditions was discussed in a verbal agreement are false. My breakup with Mr. David O'Loughlin was not the result of an arbitrary or flippant decision on my part to leave him, but rather the direct result of his ongoing infidelity. For the aforementioned reasons, I contest the merits of the action brought forth against me by Mrs. O'Loughlin.

ANALYSE ET DÉCISION [ 6 ] C'est O'Loughlin qui a le fardeau de prouver que nous sommes en présence d'un prêt. En effet, "celui qui veut faire valoir un droit doit prouver les faits qui soutiennent sa prétention." [1] . [ 7 ] Or, nous sommes ici en présence de deux versions totalement contradictoires. [ 8 ] Le Tribunal doit donc décider selon la balance des probabilités conformément à l'

article 2804 du C.c.Q. [ 9 ] Jean-Claude Royer dans son ouvrage La Preuve civile [2] s'exprime sur le degré de preuve requis pour répondre à l'obligation de convaincre en matière civile. Ces propos vont comme suit: 173 – La règle de prépondérance - (…) L'

article 2804 C.c.Q. codifie une règle depuis longtemps établie par la jurisprudence. Ainsi, dans l'arrêt Parent c. Lapointe , M. le juge Taschereau, de la Cour suprême du Canada, déclare: C'est par la prépondérance de la preuve que les causes doivent être déterminées, et c'est à la lumière de ce que révèlent les faits les plus probables, que les responsabilités doivent être établies. Il n'est donc pas requis que la preuve offerte conduise à une certitude absolue, scientifique ou mathématique. Il suffit que la preuve rende probable le fait litigieux. Dans l'arrêt Dubois c.

Génois , M. le juge Rinfret, de la Cour d'appel du Québec, s'exprime comme suit: Il aurait pu également s'appuyer sur les décisions citées par M. le juge Taschereau dans Rousseau c. Bennett , pour appuyer la théorie que «les tribunaux doivent souvent agir en pesant les probabilités. Pratiquement rien ne peut être mathématiquement prouvé». 174 – Appréciation de la prépondérance – Pour remplir son obligation de convaincre, un plaideur doit faire une preuve qui rend l'existence d'un fait plus probable que son inexistence, à moins que la loi n'exige une preuve plus convaincante.

Le degré de preuve requis ne réfère pas à son caractère quantitatif, mais bien qualitatif. La preuve produite n'est pas évaluée en fonction du nombre de témoins présentés par chacune des parties, mais en fonction de leur capacité de convaincre. Ainsi, le plaideur doit démontrer que le fait litigieux est non seulement possible, mais probable. Dans l'appréciation globale d'une preuve, il n'est pas toujours facile de tracer la ligne de démarcation entre la possibilité et la probabilité. L'application concrète de ce critère varie dans les multiples décisions judiciaires.

Même s'il faut prendre garde de leur attribuer une importance excessive, il existe néanmoins des règles qui peuvent aider un juge à décider de la suffisance ou non d'une preuve. [ 10 ] Gardant à l'esprit ces commentaires, le Tribunal est ici d'avis que la preuve administrée par Johnson rend l'existence des faits allégués par elle plus probable que leur inexistence, et ce, pour les raisons qui suivent. [ 11 ] O'Loughlin et son mari ont, de fait, transféré la propriété d'une somme de 11 400 $ à Johnson, le 25 septembre 2009.

Le consentement des parties à ce transfert de propriété a été accompagné par la délivrance et la possession immédiate du bien. En l'absence d'écrit à ce moment pour confirmer la nature du contrat qui prévalait entre les parties, les faits survenus le 25 septembre 2009 militent en faveur du contrat de donation.

[ 12 ] O'Loughlin a offert par voie de courriel [3] , le 17 octobre 2010, après la séparation de son fils et de Johnson, de contribuer au paiement de la somme de 5 300 $ pour le rachat de la propriété et des appareils ménagers.

Il appert ainsi surprenant que dans le cadre de discussions de rachat de la propriété, O'Loughlin offre personnellement une somme d'argent à Johnson alors qu'elle soutient dans le cadre des présentes procédures que cette dernière lui doit 11 400 $. [ 13 ] Le Tribunal n'accorde, par ailleurs, que peu de crédibilité au témoignage d' O'Loughlin. [ 14 ] En effet, même s'il s'agissait d'un prêt, ce que le Tribunal ne reconnaît pas, celui-ci a fait l'objet d'une transaction qui est survenue entre les parties en décembre 2010.

Une transaction au sens du Code civil du Québec est un "contrat par lequel les parties préviennent une contestation à naître, terminent un procès ou règlent les difficultés qui surviennent lors de l'exécution d'un jugement, au moyen de concessions ou de réserves réciproques." [4] . [ 15 ] Des discussions ont en effet eu cours entre le mari d'O'Loughlin, son fils et le père de Johnson à compter d'octobre 2010 pour régler les différends qui prévalaient alors. Ces discussions ont cours à la connaissance d'O'Loughlin. C'est d'ailleurs elle qui a préparé les tableaux [5] devant servir à ces discussions.

Ces tableaux détaillés font état de la créance qu'elle et son mari soutiennent avoir à l'égard de Johnson. C'est enfin à l'aide de ceux-ci que les parties ont négocié et qu'une entente est intervenue quant au rachat de la propriété par le fils d'O'Loughlin. [ 16 ] Le Tribunal est d'avis que l'entente intervenue entre les parties quant au paiement d'une somme de 13 000 $ pour le rachat de la propriété par le fils d'O'Loughlin tenait compte de la somme faisant l'objet de la présente demande.

Le mari d'O'Loughlin, qui serait débiteur du prêt allégué à 50%, y a en effet consenti, et ce, tant en son nom qu'en celui d'O'Loughlin. [ 17 ] O'Loughlin n'a, de plus, envoyé la mise en demeure à Johnson qu'une fois que le transfert de propriété entre cette dernière et son fils a été complété. Il est étonnant que seule O'Loughlin réclame, au terme de cette mise en demeure, la somme totale de 11 400 $ à Johnson alors qu'elle et son mari seraient co-créanciers à 50%.

Le mari d'O'Loughlin n'est pas non plus demandeur au terme de la présente demande et il n'a pas témoigné pour expliquer cet état de fait ou pour simplement soutenir la position d'O'Loughlin. Peut-être est-il plutôt de l'avis du père de Johnson qui lui écrivait le 24 février 2011, suite à l'envoi de la mise en demeure d'O'Loughlin à sa fille, ce qui suit: February 24, 2011 Madam: I am writing to inform you that your claim for the sum of $11,400.00 from Maya Johnson is refused. There are absolutely no grounds for discussion or consideration of this claim.

As stated in my e-mail to you on November 25, 2010, I, Errol Johnson "will lead all further discussions and negotiations on [Maya's] behalf." With your full knowledge, we negotiated and concluded a deal in the presence of your husband, Richard O'Loughlin, and your son, David O'Loughlin, who co-owned the said property at 110 Métis, Pointe Claire, with Maya Johnson. The spreadsheet which you prepared was the basis of all negotiations, and outlined all the issues which needed to be addressed. In the context of that framework, we reached a final agreement.

That agreement was reached and accepted by all parties; you included. My daughter, Maya Johnson, owes you nothing. She did not borrow any money from you. If Maya needed money, we were quite capable of affording her such. Let me repeat: your claim of $11,400.00 from Maya is refused. Now that the property has been transferred over to David, be advised that Maya and I do not wish to receive any further communications from you or your son (included but not limited to e-mails, letters, faxes, text messages and/or telephone calls). Failure to respect our

wishes will be dealt with according to the law. Please govern yourselves accordingly. Errol Johnson [ 18 ] Le Tribunal est d'avis qu'O'Loughlin était bien au courant des négociations qui ont eu cours entre le clan O'Loughlin et le clan Johnson, qu'elle y a participé et qu'elle a consenti à l'entente intervenue. Or, malgré le consentement à celle-ci, elle entreprend tout de même, en toute connaissance de cause et sans délai, des démarches pour recouvrer en justice ce à l'égard de quoi elle n'a plus de droits.

Cette façon de faire d'O'Loughlin apparaît être dictée par la mauvaise foi et la présente demande en justice s'avère être sans fondement et abusive. [ 19 ] O'Loughlin n'a ainsi pas démontré le bien-fondé de sa demande. PAR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL: REJETTE la demande de la demanderesse, Jennifer O'Loughlin. CONDAMNE la demanderesse, Jennifer O'Loughlin, à payer à la défenderesse, Maya Johnson, les frais judiciaires au montant de 148.00 $. __________________________________ GATIEN FOURNIER, J.C.Q. Date d’audience : 26 juillet 2013