2021 QCCQ 5657, 2021 QCCQ 5657

Portes et fenêtres Hyppolyte Lafontaine inc. c. Antoniazzi 2021 QCCQ 5657 COURT OF QUEBEC “ Small Claims Division “ CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL “ Civil Division “ No: 500-32-147352-159 DATE: July 2, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE STÉPHANE DAVIGNON, J.C.Q., JD 3404 ______________________________________________________________________ PORTES ET FENÊTRES HYPPOLYTE LAFONTAINE INC. Plaintiff v.

PETER ANTONIAZZI Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON AN APPLICATION FOR REVOCATION OF JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS [ 1 ] On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff introduced before the Court a Demand originating a proceeding against Mr. Antoniazzi claiming from him an amount of $2,649.02 for unpaid services in connection with the sale and installation of doors and windows in his immoveable property. [ 2 ] To the request of Mr.

Antoniazzi the file was transferred to the Small Claims Division shortly after. On or about February 10, 2016, the parties were convened to the hearing to be held on March 29, 2016. Mr. Antoniazzi requested a postponement of the trial alleging that he was to be outside of the country on that date. The Plaintiff did not contest this request and it was granted. [ 3 ] The Court clerk then submitted to the parties several dates through the months of June and September 2016 to reschedule the trial out of which none were accepted by Mr.

Antoniazzi, who stated that he was working on a project which frequently led him to travel abroad. He therefore requested that the trial be set in July of 2017, a year later. [ 4 ] His request was not granted by the coordinating judge. However, he was then offered to proceed by way of videoconference should he not be able to come to the courthouse for the trial. He didn’t accept this offer but rather insisted on being present at the hearing, although he then denied any other possibilities to proceed during the months of September or October 2016.

Considering the situation, the Court set a new date for the trial to be held on November 21, 2016, and Mr. Antoniazzi was advised both by email and mail. [ 5 ] At the hearing presided by the Honourable Justice Gilles Lareau, once the proof closed in demand Mr. Antoniazzi requested a postponement to find and produce the evidence showing he had already paid Plaintiff’s invoices. In view of his demand, justice Lareau rendered the following judgment: Le Tribunal suspend le dossier jusqu’au 18 janvier 2017 afin de permettre à la

partie défenderesse de retrouver les preuves des paiements faits sur les factures de la

partie demanderesse. Sur réception des documents, la

partie demanderesse contactera la

partie défenderesse et les parties verront si un différend subsiste. Dans la négative, ils en informeront le Tribunal. Dans l’affirmative, ils contacteront le Maître des rôles afin que la reprise d’audience soit fixée devant le soussigné. [ 6 ] Mr. Antoniazzi never managed to produce any document pertaining to his allegations whereby he would have already paid the Plaintiff’s invoices within the deadline provided for in Justice Lareau’s order. The case was then rescheduled for February 2, 2018, before him and a notice was sent to both parties. Mr.

Antoniazzi failed to appear at the hearing and judgment was rendered on the same day in the following terms: Le Tribunal est saisi d’une demande d’une action sur compte. À l’audition du 21 novembre 2016, la

partie défenderesse a représenté au Tribunal comme seul motif de défense qu’elle avait payé les factures réclamées par la

partie demanderesse mais qu’elle n’avait pas encore été en mesure de retracer la preuve de ces paiements, le Tribunal a alors suspendu jusqu’au 18 janvier 2017 afin de permettre à la

partie défenderesse de retrouver telles preuves de paiement.

Le Tribunal constate qu’après plus d’un an, la

partie défenderesse a été incapable de faire une telle preuve et considérant que cette preuve était le seul motif invoqué à l’action sur compte de la

partie demanderesse, le Tribunal est d’avis que la réclamation est justifiée. POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL ACCUEILLE la demande. CONDAMNE Peter Antoniazzi à payer à Portes et Fenêtres Hyppolyte Lafontaine 2003 inc. la somme de 2 649.02 $ (…) [ 7 ] Mr. Antoniazzi then filed a first application for revocation of judgment on March 2, 2018, alleging that the court had not contacted him prior to rescheduling the trial. His application was decided by Justice Quenneville to be sufficient to order a hearing on both the revocation and the merits of the dispute.

The hearing was scheduled to be held on October 23, 2018. [ 8 ] Nevertheless, Mr. Antoniazzi failed to appear on the trial date. Considering his default, Justice Dufour, then presiding, dismissed his application at the hearing. Amongst his reasons, he states the following: (…) Cette affaire avait pour origine une première instruction datée du 21 novembre 2016 toujours devant le juge Lareau. À cette date, la preuve en demande avait été administrée et déclarée close. En défense, M.

Antoniazzi, alors présent, a fait valoir au Tribunal qu’il devait vérifier dans ses papiers pour trouver, entre autres, des documents bancaires, qui, selon lui prouveraient le paiement de la réclamation, du moins en partie, de la demanderesse. Sur la foi de ces représentations, le juge Lareau a donc reporté à une date ultérieure la fin de l’instruction afin de permettre au défendeur, M. Antoniazzi, de trouver ces documents, de les communiquer à la

partie demanderesse, de les administrer en preuve, et ce, afin d’assurer une défense pleine et entière à cette partie. Lors de l’audition qui a suivi et qui a généré le jugement du juge Lareau, le défendeur était absent. Constatant cette absence, le juge Lareau a terminé l’instruction de l’affaire et a donné gain de cause à la demanderesse. Suite au prononcé de ce jugement par la Cour, le défendeur a institué son pourvoi en rétractation de jugement le 2 mars 2018, faisant valoir qu’il n’avait pas été prévenu de la nouvelle date d’instruction pour l’administration de sa preuve en défense.

A priori cela surprend, puisque sont notées au dossier de la Cour toutes les tentatives du personnel du greffe de la Cour pour joindre M. Antoniazzi et fixer cette nouvelle date d’audition devant le juge Lareau. L’ensemble de la documentation est au dossier de la Cour, la plus récente communication étant datée du 4 avril 2018.

Quoi qu’il en soit, cet après-midi, après avoir été appelé à deux reprises, le défendeur n’est pas présent, même après un appel général sur l’ensemble des étages du palais de justice. [ 9 ] It is of this judgment dated October 23, 2018, which he claims he would have learned of on June 23, 2021, that Mr.

Antoniazzi seeks revocation. [ 10 ] The Court finds that he doesn’t reach the burden provided for in Articles 345, 346 and 568 of the Code of civil procedure , as he more particularly failed to prove that he was prevented from defending himself by fraud, surprise or any other cause considered sufficient. [ 11 ] Mr. Antoniazzi’s sole reason in support of his second application for revocation of judgment is that he never received an email in lieu of notice for the hearing to be held on October 23, 2018.

Although the file doesn’t show that an email was sent to him, it nevertheless shows that a formal notice of hearing for that date was sent to him by certified mail on September 7, 2018, and received on October 3, 2018. His own signature appears on the official certified mail receipt from Canada Post with both the reference and the court file numbers. [ 12 ] The Court further adds that Mr.

Antoniazzi’s second attempt to revoke a judgment seriously appears to be a tactic to avoid the payment of a condemnation originating from the Plaintiff’s demand issued more than five years ago, which is certainly not a legitimate reason provided for in the law. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 13 ] DISMISSES the application for revocation of judgment presented by Mr. Peter Antoniazzi. [ 14 ] The whole , with legal costs. __________________________________ STÉPHANE DAVIGNON, J.C.Q.