Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A prior small claims judgment had condemned three parties solidarily to pay a third party, while separately apportioning 100% internal responsibility to one defendant.
   
• Location Mirage inc. disputed owing anything, arguing the solidary condemnation meant liability was shared rather than borne entirely by one party.
   
• Automobiles Denis Brassard inc. sought reimbursement of the full amount it paid under that prior judgment, relying on the internal apportionment clause.
   
• Evidence confirmed the plaintiff had paid $8,246.33 in capital, interest, and costs on behalf of the defendant.
   
• The Court applied the balance-of-probabilities standard to assess which party's interpretation of the apportionment prevailed.
   
• Judgment turned on whether the clear wording of the internal apportionment overrode the solidary nature of the original condemnation.
   

Facts of the case

Les Automobiles Denis Brassard inc. and Location Mirage inc. were both defendants, along with Club Auto Escompte, in an earlier small claims judgment rendered June 6, 2022, by Justice Monique Dupuis (file No. 505-32-037492-197). That judgment solidarily condemned all three to pay Ms. Pierre-Antoine $5,593.83, with legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, running from November 26, 2018. The same judgment also determined the internal shares of responsibility among the three defendants: Location Mirage inc. at 100%, and both Les Automobiles Denis Brassard inc. and Club Auto Escompte at 0%. Claims against several other named individuals and a related entity, Location Mirage 2000 inc., were dismissed, with no costs awarded.

Because the apportionment assigned full internal responsibility to Location Mirage inc., Les Automobiles Denis Brassard inc. paid the judgment amount, then sought reimbursement from Location Mirage inc. of the $8,246.33 it had paid in principal, interest, and costs.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The case turned on the interaction between solidary liability and internal apportionment as set out in the original judgment's own terms, rather than on a contract or policy. The relevant legal framework included article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, governing the additional indemnity on the underlying award, and articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec, which establish that each party bears the burden of proving its claims according to the preponderance of evidence.

Reasoning and analysis

Location Mirage inc. argued that because the original condemnation was solidary, it did not owe any specific amount to Les Automobiles Denis Brassard inc. The Court rejected this position, finding that the wording of the original judgment was clear: while the condemnation to Ms. Pierre-Antoine was solidary among the three defendants, the judgment separately and unambiguously determined that, as between the defendants themselves, Location Mirage inc. bore 100% of the responsibility. The Court applied the preponderance-of-evidence standard, under which a fact is proven if its existence is shown to be more probable than not. On this standard, the evidence established that Les Automobiles Denis Brassard inc. had in fact paid $8,246.33 on Location Mirage inc.'s behalf, a payment supported by an exhibit filed with the Court.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court granted the claim brought by Les Automobiles Denis Brassard inc. It found that, given the clear internal apportionment in the original judgment, the plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement from Location Mirage inc. of the amount it had paid in its place. The Court condemned Location Mirage inc. to pay Les Automobiles Denis Brassard inc. $8,246.33, with legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec running from October 10, 2022, the date of default, plus a further $271 in legal costs.