Services Comptables Fidem Etc Inc.

(Translated by Google) By the way, a very big thank you to your wife and you, my parents told me about your meeting for at least 1/2 hour yesterday! It's been a long time, even more than 10 years since I mentioned to them that their accountant was not up to scratch and I am very happy to have been able to refer them to you because I know that they are in good hands. I have repeatedly talked to my father about considering selling the company he started with his own hands, his sweat for over 15 years (almost a feat for a very small business) but he did not believe me, yesterday, you got the door and I'm extremely happy that he listens to you and I'm sure that all the fruits of their hard work will pay one day because they are exceptional and deserve it so much. (Original) En passant, un trs grand merci ta femme et toi, mes parents m'ont parl de votre rencontre pendant au moins 1/2 heure hier! Ca faisait longtemps, voir plus de 10ans que je leur mentionnais que leur comptable n'tait pas la hauteur et je suis trs heureuse d'avoir pu vous les rfrer car je sais qu'ils sont entre de bonne mains. J'ai mainte fois parler mon pre d'envisager de vendre la compagnie qu'il a mont de ses mains, sa sueur depuis plus de 15 ans (presqu'un exploit pour une trs petite entreprise) mais il ne me croyait pas, hier, vous avez la porte et je suis extrment contente qu'il vous coute et je suis certaine que tous les fruits de leur dur labeur paiera un jour car ils sont exceptionnels et le mritent tellement.
May 14th, 2021

(Translated by Google) FIDEM ACCOUNTING SERVICES ETC INC. Plaintiff vs. TRANSPORT LCLAI INC. Respondent ISSUE [13] Has the Plaintiff proven that it completed its mandate to prepare the Defendant's financial statements and file tax returns for both levels of government? TO ANALYSE [14] The Court accepts the credible version of the defendant's representative, Stphanie Labre, that she never received the informal financial statements prepared by the plaintiff. [15] She only became aware of these documents (P-7) when she received a copy of the documents accompanying the application in the Court of Quebec, Small Claims Division. [16] Article 2125 of the Civil Code of Quebec provides the following: 2125. The client may unilaterally terminate the contract, even though the performance of the work or the provision of the service has already been undertaken. [17] However, the defendant had the right to terminate the service contract entered into with the plaintiff at any time on condition that it pay the value of the services rendered. [18] Article 2129 C.C.Q. states the following: 2129. The client is bound, upon termination of the contract, to pay to the contractor or service provider, in proportion to the agreed price, the current costs and expenses, the value of the work performed before the end of the contract or before notification of termination, as well as, where applicable, the value of the goods provided, when these can be returned to him and he can use them. The entrepreneur or the service provider is obliged, for his part, to return the advances he has received in excess of what he has earned. In either case, each of the parties is also liable for any other prejudice that the other party may have suffered. [19] Accountant Nathalie Ratth was not present at the trial, being retained at work by an audit mandate, as her spouse, Patrick Perron, asserted. [20] The Court was therefore unable to question her on the progress of the work as of May 31, 2014, the date of the P-3 invoice requested by these proceedings. [21] However, the Court considers that on this date (May 31, 2014) and on July 17, 2014, the work was not finished, as mentioned by the plaintiff. [22] Using its discretionary power, the Court estimates that at the end of the plaintiff's mandate, only 40% of the work was completed since the financial statements were not ready and the income statements had not been produced. [23] Applying the terms of article 2129 C.c.Q. cited above, the amount owed by the defendant is set at $643.78 ($1,609.45 x 40%), taxes included. FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL: GRANTS the plaintiff's request in part; CONDEMN the defendant, Transport Laclai Inc., to pay the plaintiff the sum of $643.78 with interest at the legal rate, the additional indemnity provided for in article 1619 C.c.Q. from the summons of August 21, 2014 and legal costs of $157.00. (Original) SERVICES COMPTABLES FIDEM ETC INC. Partie demanderesse c. TRANSPORT LACLAI INC. Partie dfenderesse QUESTION EN LITIGE [13] La demanderesse a-t-elle prouv quelle a complt son mandat de prparer les tats financiers de la dfenderesse et de produire les rapports dimpts aux deux paliers de gouvernement? ANALYSE [14] Le Tribunal retient la version crdible de la reprsentante de la dfenderesse, Stphanie Labre, quelle na jamais reu les tats financiers informels prpars par la demanderesse. [15] Elle na pris connaissance de ces documents (P-7) que lorsquelle a reu copie des pices accompagnant la demande en Cour du Qubec, division des Petites crances. [16] Larticle 2125 du Code civil du Qubec prvoit ce qui suit : 2125. Le client peut, unilatralement, rsilier le contrat, quoique la ralisation de l'ouvrage ou la prestation du service ait dj t entreprise. [17] Or, la dfenderesse avait le droit de rsilier le contrat de service intervenu avec la demanderesse en tout temps condition de payer la valeur des services rendus. [18] Larticle 2129 C.c.Q. stipule ce qui suit : 2129. Le client est tenu, lors de la rsiliation du contrat, de payer l'entrepreneur ou au prestataire de services, en proportion du prix convenu, les frais et dpenses actuelles, la valeur des travaux excuts avant la fin du contrat ou avant la notification de la rsiliation, ainsi que, le cas chant, la valeur des biens fournis, lorsque ceux-ci peuvent lui tre remis et qu'il peut les utiliser. L'entrepreneur ou le prestataire de services est tenu, pour sa part, de restituer les avances qu'il a reues en excdent de ce qu'il a gagn. Dans l'un et l'autre cas, chacune des parties est aussi tenue de tout autre prjudice que l'autre partie a pu subir. [19] La comptable Nathalie Ratth ntait pas prsente au procs tant retenue au travail par un mandat de vrification, tel que la affirm son conjoint, Patrick Perron. [20] Le Tribunal na donc pu la questionner sur ltat davancement des travaux en date du 31 mai 2014, date de la facture P-3 rclame par les prsentes procdures. [21] Le Tribunal considre toutefois qu cette date (31 mai 2014) ainsi quau 17 juillet 2014, les travaux ntaient pas termins, tel que mentionn par la demanderesse. [22] Utilisant son pouvoir discrtionnaire, le Tribunal estime qu la fin du mandat de la demanderesse, seulement 40% des travaux taient complts puisque les tats financiers ntaient pas prts et les dclarations du revenu navaient pas t produites. [23] Appliquant les termes de larticle 2129 C.c.Q. prcit, la somme due par la dfenderesse est fixe 643,78$ (1 609,45$ x 40%), taxes incluses. PAR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL : ACCUEILLE la demande de la demanderesse en partie; CONDAMNE la dfenderesse, Transport Laclai Inc., payer la demanderesse la somme de 643,78$ avec intrts au taux lgal, lindemnit additionnelle prvue larticle 1619 C.c.Q. compter de lassignation du 21 aot 2014 et les frais judiciaires de 157,00$.
Nov 13th, 2016