2015 QCCQ 4279, 2015 QCCQ 4279

Venne c. Webber 2015 QCCQ 4279 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD TOWN OF COWANSVILLE Civil Division No: 455-32-004636-147 DATE: MAY 6 th , 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SERGE CHAMPOUX, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ TOBIE VENNE Plaintiff v.

GARY WEBBER Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Tobie Venne was claiming $4100 from Gary Webber because of a financial obligation that Mr. Webber allegedly contracted toward him for that amount. At the hearing, the plaintiff amended (reduced) his claim to $4000. THE FACTS [ 2 ] The plaintiff claimed that, in the spring of 2012, he gave the defendant a total of $4000 in two or three instalments.

That amount was allegedly given in cash with no contract, receipt or other writing having been prepared. [ 3 ] According to Tobie Venne, those amounts were provided in the framework of an undertaking agreed upon between the parties for the growing of therapeutic cannabis. At the time, the two parties held licences to grow the substance in Québec. However, it was the defendant who had contacts with an enterprise in British Columbia for the eventual sale of the product. [ 4 ] To begin production, a substantial investment had to be made, probably about $100 000.

At the time, the two parties were on very good terms, as they had worked together on committees promoting the therapeutic use and consumption of cannabis. [ 5 ] Gary Webber allegedly had the financial capacity to put one or more cannabis greenhouses into production, but he counted on the skills of Tobie Venne to participate in the development and growth of the plants. [ 6 ] Tobie Venne was in a fragile position from a financial standpoint, His driver’s licence had been suspended for unpaid fines and, in general, he had virtually no cash.

In the spring of 2012, he convinced his grandfather to borrow from an insurance policy in order to free up the cash that Gary Webber asked him for, i.e. $7000 to $7500. Only about $4000 in cash could be had from the insurance policy. [ 7 ] According to Tobie Venne, Gary Webber accepted the amount of $4000. The principle was as follows: if the number of plants likely to be produced in the greenhouse were counted, it could be deduced that each cost between $300 and $400. With his [TRANSLATION] “investment”, Tobie Venne purchased a number of plants.

Ultimately, if the operation was viable, he would make a profit between the per-plant production cost and the proceeds from sales. The plaintiff believed that production began during the summer. [ 8 ] Also according to the plaintiff, in the fall of 2012 he was informed by the defendant that the operation had been destroyed and, therefore, his investment was lost. [ 9 ] That loss led to all sorts of unpleasantness for him, particularly tension with his grandfather, who had, in the end, liquidated the insurance policy or allegedly cashed it in.

The plaintiff stated that he contacted the defendant many times, but the defendant always refused to reimburse him. He admitted that he may have used rather harsh words in asking for his money. [ 10 ] In defence, Gary Webber admitted having received the amount alleged by Tobie Venne. However, he added the following.

[ 11 ] While working with the plaintiff, he developed affection for him. He was the one who intended to set up the therapeutic cannabis operation in a greenhouse he wanted to build on a property he owned in Saint-Étienne-de-Bolton. It appears quite obvious that Tobie Venne’s investment was not of great importance in the decision to set the project in motion or not. Rather, he had an interest in allowing Tobie Venne to invest in the business in order to help him financially, but above all to take advantage of his knowledge of the plant.

It appears that Tobie Venne very clearly spoke about his exceptional skills in growing cannabis. [ 12 ] But Gary Webber maintains that, after he received the partial amounts from the plaintiff (he sought $7000 to $7500), the plaintiff disappeared, whereas the growing of the plants was under way. The plaintiff allegedly promised to appear and work on the site, but did nothing. He reportedly never devoted even a minute to providing assistance or advice.

He never came to see the operation and never provided the remainder of the investment that he undertook to make. [ 13 ] In October 2012, a sudden, unexpected snowstorm destroyed the greenhouse.

The plants were heavily affected by the collapse of the greenhouse and were so damaged that the client-distributor in British Columbia refused to buy them. [ 14 ] Gary Webber indicated that he invited Tobie Venne to come and see the situation for himself and offered him an opportunity to recover the damaged plants if he wanted, but the plaintiff was never heard from and never showed up. [ 15 ] In the months that followed, more threatening messages were reportedly sent by the plaintiff, with the result that Garry Webber reportedly even had to call the police.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 16 ] Any person who seeks a civil remedy bears the burden of proof. The Civil Code of Québec has the following to say on that subject: 2803. A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. A person who claims that a right is null, has been modified or is extinguished shall prove the facts on which he bases his claim. 1991, c. 64, a. 2803; I.N. 2014-05-01. 2804. Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. 1991, c. 64, a. 2804. [1] [ 17 ] Furthermore,

article 2862 of the Civil Code of Québec indicates the following concerning the admissibility of proof: 2862. Proof of a juridical act may not be made, between the parties, by testimony where the value in dispute exceeds $1,500.

However, in the absence of proof in writing and regardless of the value in dispute, proof may be made by testimony of any juridical act where there is a commencement of proof; proof may also be made by testimony, against a person, of a juridical act executed by him in the ordinary course of business of an enterprise. 1991, c. 64, a. 2862; I.N. 2014-05-01. [2] [ 18 ] To win his case, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to prove that he gave the defendant $4000.

He must also legally explain the content of the obligations he claims the defendant incurred toward him when he gave him that amount. [ 19 ] For example, was the money that changed hands a loan, an investment or gift? The plaintiff’s evidence is far from convincing on the subject and, in any case, far from preponderant. In fact, the Court finds that, if the plaintiff had any hope of recovering his investment, there first had to be a crop, which never happened, but also that the plaintiff was expected to perform major work, beyond the funding, which he never did.

THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 20 ] DISMISSES the plaintiff’s claim. [ 21 ] THE WHOLE WITH COSTS.

__________________________________ Serge Champoux J.C.Q. Date of hearing: March 23, 2015