2016 QCCQ 12300, 2016 QCCQ 12300

Iamonico c. American Express Canada Ltd. JL2514 TRANSLATION 2016 QCCQ 12300 COURT OF QUEBEC « Small Claims Division » CANADA PROVINCE DE QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL « Civil Chamber » Case #: 500-32-152526-168 DATE : October 17, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY MR. JUSTICE GILSON LACHANCE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ROBERTO IAMONICO Plaintiff v. AMERICAN EXPRESS CANADA LTD.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] After a legal action brought in Court by Roberto Iamonico, the defendant, American Express Canada Ltd., makes an application for dismissal. [ 2 ] The legal action reads as follow : “I hold Amex responsible for breach of contract and credit damages to my credit rating and as well my mom, Giovanna, the primary holder, for suspending and cancelling my card, and putting a late payment notice to the credit agency without justification.” “I invoke the terms and conditions as set out in the cardholder agreement.” “I invoke articles Book Five, 1375, 1377, 1379, 1384, 1403, 1407 of the Quebec Civil Code and the pertinent articles in the Consumer Protection Act Art 8, 10, 11, 11.3, etc.” [ 3 ] The application for dismissal reads as follow: [ 4 ] Pursuant to

section 85 of the New Code of Civil procedure, a person must have a sufficient interest to bring a legal action : 85. To bring a judicial application, a person must have a sufficient interest.

[…] [ 5 ]

Section 536 N.C.c.p. also provides the following : 536. “ An application for recovery of a claim not exceeding $15,000 , excluding interest, is instituted under the rules of this Title if the plaintiff is acting in their own name and for their own account or is acting as administrator of the property of others, tutor or curator or under a protection mandate. The same applies to an application seeking the resolution, resiliation or cancellation of a contract provided neither the value of the contract, nor the amount claimed, if any, exceeds $15,000.” [ 6 ]

Section 542 N.C.c.p. provides that a person must have a mandate to bring a judicial action on behalf of a mandator. In the case at hand, the plaintiff did not produce the mandate while instituting the procedures. The mandate was produced at the hearing after the application for dismissal had been filed. With respect to Robert Iamonico’s application [ 7 ] Iamonico recognizes that he is not the basic cardholder.

Therefore, as a supplementary cardholder, he cannot make any claim for himself for damages under the agreement that provides the followings among others: Introduction […] You and your mean the person who applied for this account but do not include a supplementary cardmember.

We have opened a card account in your name and you will be the basic cardmember. […] (Page 5) Liability […] A supplementary cardmember is an authorized user of your account but does not have an account with us and is not liable to us for any charges to your account. (Page 7) Supplementary Cardmembers At your request, we may issue a card on your account to another person (called a supplementary cardmember). […] [ 8 ] With respect to the application for the mother of Mr.

Roberto Iamonico, brought by Roberto himself, no mandate was produced when he launched his action. [ 9 ] Furthermore, even though the mandate had been filed while initiating the proceedings, as a mandatary, he was not in the position to bring any action on behalf of the mother without paying the legal stamps. [ 10 ] As a matter of fact, Mr. Robert Iamonico did not pay any legal stamps for his application since a claim slip was produced in the file.

[ 11 ] Besides, it is indicated in the court record that the court office offered their point of view, but the plaintiff decided to go ahead and filed the application as is. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the application for dismissal, with cost. __________________________________ GILSON LACHANCE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing : September 29, 2016