2017 QCCQ 1468, 2017 QCCQ 1468

Bruck c. Gach-Lee 2017 QCCQ 1468 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-147325-155 DATE: February 16, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MENACHEM BRUCK and JULIE RIOUX-BEAUPRÉ Plaintiffs/cross-defendants v.

NATALKA GACH-LEE Defendant/cross-plaintiff ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] GIVEN the evidence, including the testimony of plaintiffs, Natasha Melikoff (“Melikoff”), Bayla Yess (“Yess”), defendants, Elizabeth Lee, David John Lee, as well as exhibits P-1 to P-6 and D-1 to D-9; [ 2 ] WHEREAS defendant is a wedding planner; [ 3 ] WHEREAS a services contract intervened between the parties, in February, 2014; [ 4 ] WHEREAS the parties agreed on a price of $2,200.00 ( art. 2109 of the Civil Code of Quebec ); [ 5 ] WHEREAS the scope of defendant’s mandate is outlined in the contract; [ 6 ] WHEREAS , amongst other things, defendant’s “duties” included: - budget preparation, allocation and management; - preparing and maintaining a wedding planning schedule; - attending all vendor appointments; - handling follow-ups with all vendors; - supervision of ceremony and reception set-up; - on site direction of wedding ceremony; - on site direction of wedding reception, until close of evening; - an assistant for the day of the wedding at no extra cost. [ 7 ] WHEREAS , it appears from the preponderance of evidence and, in particular, the testimony of uninterested third party witnesses Melikoff and Yess, who corroborated plaintiffs’ testimony, that defendant did not execute her mandate in the best interest of her clients, with prudence and diligence and in accordance with usual practice and the rules of art to ensure that the services provided were in conformity with the contract (art. 2100 C.C.Q .); [ 8 ] WHEREAS , inter alia , defendant did not properly handle follow-ups with all vendors; was not present throughout all of the wedding day; did not diligently and prudently supervise the ceremony and reception set-up; did not provide reasonable on site direction

of the wedding ceremony and reception; did not provide a reasonably trained assistant for the wedding day; and did not manage the budget; [ 9 ] WHEREAS the above omissions resulted in a patent lack of organization; for example, guests were not greeted; guests were not directed; tables were not set-up in a timely fashion; vendors were left to wonder about scheduling; there was a general sense of confusion at the venue; plaintiffs were “stressed-out”; there were “bags of garbage in the aisle at 5:15”; guests “were walking around where they shouldn’t be”; the venue was chaotic; defendant left and was nowhere to be found for over 2 hours; there was a problem with the ice machine; there was “stuff everywhere”; “people didn’t know where to go”; the situation was “odd”; the “wine glasses were hidden”; there was no bouquet for the bride; when the officiant arrived, defendant was absent; there were “bottles everywhere”; the dancing was not organized; defendant failed to make customary announcements; [ 10 ] WHEREAS plaintiffs’ recriminations are fully described in demand letter, exhibit P-5; [ 11 ] WHEREAS defendant had an obligation of result; [ 12 ] WHEREAS contract D-1 is a consumer contract; [ 13 ] WHEREAS defendant failed to comply with arts. 37, 38, 40, 41,42, 219 et 228 of the Consumer Protection Act , [1] a law of public order; [ 14 ] GIVEN art. 272 of the Act ; [ 15 ] WHEREAS defendant failed to fulfil her obligations under the Act ; [ 16 ] WHEREAS plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an indemnity of $2,000.00, representing a partial reimbursement of the fees paid ($1,500.00), as well as damages for their trouble of inconvenience ($500.00); [ 17 ] WHEREFORE , furthermore, defendant’s cross-demand is unfounded for all of the above reasons; WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: GRANTS plaintiffs’ action in part; SENTENCES defendant to pay plaintiffs the sum of $2,000.00, plus interest at the legal annual rate of 5% and the additional indemnity provided for in

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec , as of November 17, 2014, and legal costs in the amount of $138.00. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Dates of hearings: October 3 rd , 2016 and January 31 st , 2017