Small Claims Sunday #3

Not a whole lot of interesting decisions this week; I only picked out 4.

First case is about revoking a previous small claims judgement.
Lauzon c. Lepage
Plaintiffs are asking for the judge to revoke a previous ruling. The original audition was held on Feb 20, but Plaintiffs were absent. The presiding judge rejected Plaintiffs’ claim due to their absence. Plaintiffs claim they made a mistake in the time, and thought the audition was set at 19:00 instead of 9:00.
Result: A small claims ruling may be revoked according to the code of civil procedure:

989. If a party against whom a judgment by default is rendered was unable to contest the action or attend the hearing owing to surprise, fraud or any other sufficient cause, the party may apply for the revocation of the judgment.

A party may also apply for the revocation of the judgment in any case described in article 483 that is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Book.

A party’s negligence is not sufficient to justify a revocation. Misreading the time indicated in the convocation papers constitutes a gross mistake that cannot be used to justify a revocation.
Note: In the decision below, the judge allowed a revocation for a Plaintiff who did not show up. The Plaintiff claimed he never received the convocation letter, and that he was given a wrong date when he called the courthouse.

Gélinas c. Desjardins Assurances générales (insurance claim)
Plaintiff is suing his insurance company for the price of a stolen sound system. Plaintiff lives on the 4th floor of an apartment building, and the pieces of the sound system weighed up to 110lbs. Plaintiff has a history of misdemeanors, thefts, fraud, assault.
Result: Claim is rejected. Plaintiff never gave a plausible explanation of the theft, not an explanation on how people could have moved such heavy pieces out of his apartment. Plaintiff also had no proof of property (purchasing invoices) or possession of the goods.
Note: I’ve heard tips like “tape your invoices to the back of the items to have them handy if you need to return it or something”. Sounds like a really bad idea now. The Court did not find Plaintiff to be a particularly credible witness. I’m not quite sure what the judge wants as a “plausible explanation”, seems like most of the time the story is “I went out, I came back, my stuff was gone”. On the other hand, if you live on the 4th floor with narrow stairs, and get your stereo stolen, it might be good to have some explanation on why the crime could be so targeted.

Gaudreau c. Montréal (Ville de) (damage to car)
Plaintiff is suing the City of Montreal for damages to his car after he hit the “ring of a manhole cover”. The City claims the ring is usually welded to the manhole frame, and is not supposed to come off. The city employee testifies he has never seen such an incident in 9 years at the city.
Result: claim rejected. Plaintiff has not proven the City’s fault or negligence, The Court considers there was no way to prevent such an incident as the rings are welded tight and do not receive any special maintenance. It has always been this way, and no other such incident has ever happened.

Dahmane c. 2744-2169 Québec inc. (Groupe Verdun) (warranty)
Plaintiff demands reimbursement of purchase price of kitchen counters because of unusual deterioration after 3 months. Defendant claims the damage is due to Plaintiff’s defective dishwasher.
Result: Defendants condemned to reimburse price of counters. The proof did not establish the cause of the damage. Defendant did not prove the dishwasher was defective, so is liable for the quality of his product, as per the Consumer Protection Act.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*