2019 QCCQ 2700, 2019 QCCQ 2700

Ferme Morris c. Municipality of Sheenboro 2019 QCCQ 2700 COURT OF QUEBEC “Small Claims Division” CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF PONTIAC LOCALITY OF CAMPBELL’S BAY “Civil Division” No.: 555-32-700025-188 DATE: April 16, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE PATSY BOUTHILLETTE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ FERME MORRIS, general partnership 78 Sullivan Rd., Sheenboro, Quebec J0X 2Z0 Plaintiff v.

MUNICIPALITY OF SHEENBORO 59 Sheen Rd., Sheenboro, Quebec J0X 2Z0 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff claims $1,994.81 in damages from the defendant following work performed by the defendant near its land. [ 2 ] The plaintiff also claims clean-up work to be performed by the Municipality, but that measure does not fall under this Court’s jurisdiction. [ 3 ] The defendant denies that the corrective work performed by the plaintiff was needed and declares that they were not told about it, which prevented them from having it done at a lower cost. [ 4 ] This ground is without value because the evidence duly shows that not only was the Municipality aware of the situation, they even performed repair work on the plaintiff’s neighbour’s land. [ 5 ] The second ground raised by the defendant is more serious.

Even if the plaintiff’s claim is well founded, which the Court will not decide, the defendant failed to institute its action within the time limit prescribed by s. 1112.1 of the Municipal Code of Québec . [ 6 ] The Court considers that there is proof that the 15-day notice was duly served on the defendant. However, the legal proceeding was clearly instituted outside the 6-month statutory limit.

The fault was committed on July 20, 2017, and the action was instituted on August 2, 2018. [ 7 ] Consequently, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the action as it was brought. [ 8 ] As for the legal costs, the first paragraph of art. 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure states: 340. Legal costs are owed to the party that was successful, unless the court decides otherwise. [ 9 ] In this case, the Court considers that the situation and the action of the defendant justifies setting aside the usual rule.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 10 ] DISMISSES the plaintiff’s claim, each party paying its legal costs. __________________________________ PATSY BOUTHILLETTE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: January 14, 2018