2016 QCCQ 17732, 2016 QCCQ 17732

Iranpur c. Gupta 2016 QCCQ 17732 COURT OF QUEBEC “Small claims Division” CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL No: 500-32-146638-152 DATE: December 12, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SYLVIE LACHAPELLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MEHERNOSH BEHRAM IRANPUR AND MEHER IRANPUR Plaintiffs vs.

DINESH GUPTA Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On April 9, 2015, Plaintiffs introduced proceedings against Defendant alleging that the latter who practices as an accountant committed a fault as he did not file their personal income tax reports and omitted to register their daughter for child benefit. [ 2 ] They claim damages to the amount of $ 15,000.00. [ 3 ] Defendant raises that the proceedings are time barred as the alleged fault would have been committed on or around February 25, 2012. [ 4 ] The Court will first examine the issue of the prescription.

THE LAW [ 5 ]

Article 2880 of the Civil Code of Quebec prevails that : « … The day on which the right of action arises determines the beginning of the period of extinctive prescription. » [ 6 ]

Article 2925 of the Civil Code of Quebec prevails that : «An action to enforce a personal right or movable real right is prescribed by three years, if the prescriptive period is not otherwise determined.» [ 7 ] Also,

article 2898 of the Civil Code of Quebec provides that acknowledgment of a right, as well as renunciation of the benefit of the time elapsed, interrupts prescription.

JUDGMENT [ 8 ] Plaintiffs allege that the fault was committed on or around December 20, 2011 and that on or around February 25, 2012, Defendant caused damages to Plaintiffs. [ 9 ] Plaintiffs filed a letter dated March 8, 2012 ( P-16 ) addressed to Defendant in which they reproach him to have omitted to file their personal income tax reports as well as to advise them to register their daughter to receive the child benefit indemnity. [ 10 ] Therefore, it appears from the lecture of the proceedings that on February 25, 2012, at the latest, Plaintiffs knew that Defendant supposedly committed a fault, which is the day on which the right of action arises. [ 11 ] Thus, Plaintiffs had until February 25, 2015 to institute proceedings against Defendant. [ 12 ] The fact that Plaintiffs argue that they have waited to file their proceedings because defendant would have told them he would correct the situation is not an acknowledgment by Defendant of the right of Plaintiffs and is therefore not interruptive of prescription. [ 13 ] But even if it was to be considered an acknowledgment of the right of Plaintiffs, it occurred before February 2012

[ 14 ] On February 2012, Plaintiffs knew that Defendant acted negligently according to them and for that reason revokes Defendant’s mandate and retained the services of an another accountant. [ 15 ] Thus, the three (3) years prescription period starts from February 2012 and since there is no evidence that the prescription was interrupted or suspended, Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs demand as it is time barred. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiffs demand introductory of suit. THE WHOLE with costs. __________________________________ SYLVIE LACHAPELLE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: November 7, 2016.