2013 QCCQ 5712, 2013 QCCQ 5712

Brett c. Telus Communications inc. 2013 QCCQ 5712 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD LOCALITY OF GRANBY Civil Division No. 460-32-006533-128 DATE: May 16, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SERGE CHAMPOUX J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ JENNIFER BRETT Plaintiff v. TELUS COMMUNICATIONS INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff is claiming $1500 from the defendant further to damage the latter allegedly caused her in 2010. [ 2 ] During that period, the plaintiff had a cell phone of which the defendant ("Telus") was the service provider. Initially, as of 2008, the plaintiff used a prepaid card.

Realizing that the amounts purchased gave her only a few minutes of service, and wanting more, she contacted Telus. [ 3 ] It does not seem she understood at the time that, if she were to switch to a monthly fee-based service, she would be required to enter into a longer-term agreement.

Be that as it may, she agreed on a particular package with a Telus employee and agreed, as of early 2010, to be billed monthly. [ 4 ] The very detailed invoices clearly show that there was a three-year agreement with her, as well as the cost and scope of each of the services. [ 5 ] Similarly, the interest rate applicable to the account payable was very clearly indicated when she defaulted on her account. She affirmed that she never saw it. [ 6 ] She alleged that she had difficulty accessing the Telus network when she moved to Cowansville. Some four or five times, she lost a call.

She moved back to Granby, where the coverage was better. [ 7 ] After she had been using the phone for a few months, the balance on her bill kept going up, ultimately reaching or exceeding a balance of $200. That was the credit limit set by Telus, considering its experience in such matters. [ 8 ] Her phone service was cut off, with the result that her calls were redirected to the defendant's collection department. She was charged a $30 reconnection fee. In August 2010, the plaintiff decided to terminate her agreement. Telus claimed a $400 penalty from her.

She testified that she found herself in a period of intense stress at the time. She cried for two days and did not know what to do. She said that she took steps and ultimately hired the services of a lawyer who took on legal aid cases. The defendant was served by bailiff with a formal notice to cancel the $400 claimed as a contract termination fee. [ 9 ] Jennifer Brett explained that, never having worked, it seems, since completing her studies, she is not familiar with business in general, contracts or the operations of large companies like Telus.

In addition, she takes issue with the fact that she was not taught the basics of credits and budgets at school. [ 10 ] She is therefore claiming the following amounts: $300 for the "forging" of a contract; $7.18 in late-payment fees (interest) claimed; $30, twice, for the reactivation of her cell phone, which she says should not have been deactivated even though she had reached her credit limit.

She is also claiming $0.90 for text messages she feels were unfairly billed. [ 11 ] Although she did not cost her claim, she is also claiming the two days of distress she went through following the receipt of the invoice indicating $400 in fees. In addition, she is seeking $100 in damages to which she says she is entitled because Telus employees made fun of her when she contacted them. She is further claiming $100 in damages for the poor cell phone coverage in Cowansville while she was living there and $100 in damages for her credit file, which Telus reportedly sent to companies in that field.

[ 12 ] Telus contended that it fulfilled all of its contractual obligations. In addition, it pointed out that it gave numerous credits to the plaintiff, including in respect of the $400 contract termination fee. That credit was offered even though the company had no legal obligation to do so, in the interest of being a good corporate citizen and to comply with new legislation that did not really apply to the plaintiff's situation. ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 13 ] A person who makes a claim against another person has, both in fact and in law, the burden of proving his or her claim.

In the present case, the plaintiff is seeking the contractual liability of the defendant. [ 14 ] Nothing in the evidence shows that the plaintiff has legal recourse against the defendant. Nothing in the evidence indicates what fault the defendant may have committed, which contractual obligation it may have failed to fulfil. Nothing in the evidence demonstrates that the plaintiff suffered damage for which she may be compensated under a rule of law. [ 15 ] The duty to inquire, find out one's rights and their limits, and look after one's own interests are also responsibilities of citizens who claim to have rights.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 16 ] DISMISSES the plaintiff's action. [ 17 ] THE WHOLE WITH COSTS. __________________________________ Serge Champoux J.C.Q. Date of hearing: April 8, 2013