Law Assignment Projects

Legal Study

Legault Arruda & Associates

Graduation project – Paralegal Technology – JCA.1F

College CDI. Administration. Technology. Health.

Phase 10 : Droit administratif

Me Van Damme asks you to attend a meeting between a new client and him.

Client's name : Rachid Lumande

Adress : 2284, rue Ontario Est, Montréal (Québec) H2K 1V8

Phone : 450-984-5214

Email : [email protected]

File Number : 1854-2

Advance fee : 500$

At this meeting, you note the following facts :

 The client and his wife, Mrs. Bendesa, lived in their previous home for eight years (monthly rent of $895).

 With the arrival of the children, the wife stopped working. As the family's income declined, the client wanted to pay less monthly rent.

 It is in this context that in January 2017, he visited the eight-unit building owned by the landlord Raamco International Properties Canadian Ltd., which is adjacent to other

buildings also owned by the landlord.

 The client covets unit number 8, which has 4½ rooms, including two bedrooms.

 The client submits an offer to rent and the survey is positive and the landlord agrees to rent the unit to the client.

 The lease is signed on May 10, 2017 for an occupancy from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 at a monthly rent of $700. On a second visit, the unit is being renovated, but the landlord's

employee, Shawn, reassures the client that the unit will be ready and that the bathroom

fixtures will be changed.

 The lease states that before the unit is delivered, the landlord agrees to paint it white and to sand and varnish the wood floor.

 The client moves into the unit on July 1st with his wife and their two daughters aged 19 months and 3 years.

 He notices that, except for the vanity, the bathroom has not been renovated and the toilet bowl is stained. He notices the absence of mosquito nets in the bedrooms and the living

room.

 From the first night, the client notices cockroaches.

 The next day, the 3 year old child presents red and swollen marks on the skin and scratches herself strongly. The client and his wife do not know the reason. His wife calls the landlord's

office and speaks with Aïda to inform her that her daughter has bite marks. Surprised, Aïda

tells her that an extermination treatment was done before they arrived at the dwelling so

that there should be no insects. She reassures the client's wife that she is putting the dwelling

on the waiting list for a visit from the exterminator.

 In the meantime, the client and his wife learn that their daughter is being bitten by bed bugs.

 The exterminator inspected the home on July 24 and treated it for cockroaches. He noted the presence of a bed bug and suggested that the house be treated for bed bugs.

 On August 2, the exterminator treated the house for cockroaches and mice and again on September 6 and November 2. On August 11th, there is a treatment against mice only. The

following treatments against cockroaches take place on November 27, 2017, January 24

and March 14, 2018, May 24 and June 19.

 The housing is finally treated against bed bugs on September 11 and October 12 and 23, 2017.

 At the end of October, the client's family no longer feels the presence of bed bugs. However, the client and his wife want to leave the accommodation, especially for the children. They

go to the landlord's office to meet Mr. Aguilar. They try to reach a lease cancellation

agreement with the landlord. Mr. Aguilar refuses to terminate the lease and tells them with

a wave of his fingers that they will not receive anything and he stands up, raises his voice

and says, "Get out of my office," says the client.

 Then Mr. Aguilar will call the police when Ms. Bendesa starts to cry, the client explains.

 On November 29, 2017, the tenant gives the landlord formal notice to correct the situation permanently or terminate the lease early because of the inconvenience to his family. The

formal notice reads as follows:

« Currently, as I have told you several times, I am experiencing the

following problems:

- Presence of bed bugs from July 1st to the end of October 2017, which

caused health problems to one of my children;

- Presence of cockroaches;

- The bathroom is in poor condition (floor, soap dish and toilet).

- A mosquito net missing in one of the rooms.

In addition, one of the landlord's officials is rude and verbally aggressive

with me and my spouse.

The exterminations cost me $752.51 (property damage). Also, given the

situation, I want to terminate my lease between March 31 and April 30,

2018.

Consequently, you are formally required to pay me the material damages

of dollars within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter and to return to me

signed the lease termination agreement attached herewith.

Should you fail to comply with this agreement, I will have no other

choice but to take legal action, without further notice or delay, to ensure

that my rights are recognized and respected. »

[Reproduced as is]

 On December 21, 2017, the City of Montréal will send notices of non-compliance to the landlord for the client's building, as well as the two other adjoining buildings. These notices

include the presence of insects and various deficiencies and, more specifically for the

tenant's dwelling, the following mention :

« Location [...]

Dwelling: 8

Cleanliness

Room

Install the screen to the missing storm window. (Sec. 52.1)

THIS WORK MUST BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN 60 DAYS

AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE.

Kitchen

See note for a description of the offence.

SUCH WORK MUST BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN 60 DAYS

AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE.

Note : Please replace the urethane plugging the holes under the kitchen sink

with a conforming material. »

[Reproduced as is]

 The client explains that bed bugs reappear in his home at the end of December. He notifies the landlord, but no treatment is given.

 On January 29, 2018, the client's wife called the landlord's secretary, Aïda, to advise her again that her children were being bitten. She put the call on the speaker phone and a man

said, "Do you have any proof? ».

 The client notified the landlord's secretary, Aïda, in February and March 2018 for treatment for bed bugs, but each time she said, "Be patient, we'll get through.

 However, until they leave the unit, the landlord will not send any bed bug exterminators. The client moved into his new home on June 1, 2018 while paying his June rent to the

landlord.

 Again on April 27, 2018, the City will issue a Notice of Non-Compliance indicating, specifically with respect to the client's dwelling (next page) :

« Dwelling: 8

Room

Uncorrected

Install the screen to the missing storm window.

(Sec. 62.1)

THIS WORK MUST BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN 60 DAYS

AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE.

Remedial work must be completed no later than 60 days after receipt

of this notice.

Kitchen

Uncorrected

See note for a description of the offence.

SUCH WORK MUST BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN 60 DAYS

AFTER RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE.

Note : Please replace the urethane plugging the holes under the kitchen sink

with a conforming material.

Remedial work must be completed no later than 60 days after receipt

of this notice.

Extermination

There are bed bugs in the accommodation. Have an exterminator who is a

member of the ASSOCIATION QUÉBÉCOISE EN GESTION

PARASITAIRE carry out the extermination and provide us with a report

of the intervention. (Art. 25.9.1)

CES TRAVAUX DOIVENT ÊTRE EXÉCUTÉS AU PLUS TARD 30

JOURS APRÈS LA RÉCEPTION DE CET AVIS.

Corrective measures must be carried out no later than 30 days after

receipt of this notice. »

[Reproduced as is]

 The client does not share the tenant's version. His representative, Ramiro Aguilar, submits that there was no infestation in the client's dwelling and that the client never inquired about

the presence of insects before signing the lease or before arriving at the dwelling. Mr.

Aguilar also submits that he acted in a preventive manner by treating the housing before

the arrival of the tenant and pleads that he did not commit any fault in the management of

the problem.

 The client admits that it did not ask the Lessor's employees about the presence of bed bugs until July 2017, as it was not aware of this insect. However, knowing about cockroaches,

he does not want them in his home. He and his wife indicate that if they had been advised

of the cockroach problem, they would never have rented the unit. Similarly, if the landlord

had informed them of the presence of bed bugs in the building, they would never have

exposed their children to this insect.

After the initial meeting with the client, Me Van Damme informs you that he will request the

retroactive cancellation of the lease as of March 1, 108, the reduction of the rent as of July 1, 2017

as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

Work to be completed:

 Using the knowledge acquired in the courses Administrative Procedures and Computerized Legal Research, please analyze the facts of the case and complete the legal framework of

the case (next page). Some research will probably be necessary.

 Afterwards, please identify an appropriate model of act. You do not need to complete the act. You must find the model and send it to Me Van Damme so that he can fill it out himself.

DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

1. Field of Law

2. Applicable legislative

provisions

3. Useful Remedies and

Procedural Vehicles

4. Jurisdiction of the Court

5. Parties involved

6. Prior actions required and

time frame for action

7. Burden of proof

a) Plaintiff

b) Defendant

(if applicable)

* * *

Me Van Damme now transmits to you his handwritten notes relating to the file of Mrs. Chantal

Brulé.

Client's name : Chantal Brulé

Adress : 1422, boulevard Iberville, Repentigny (Québec) J5Y 4G4

Phone : 450-547-9843

Email : [email protected]

File Number : 1694-1

Advance fee : 500$

Initial Interview - 19 August 2020 - Chantal Brûlé (File #1694-1)

 The client disagrees with two review decisions rendered on August 1, 2017 and November 29, 2019 by the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ).

 These decisions uphold the refusal to reimburse expenses associated with dental treatments involving several teeth of the upper jaw and expenses associated with dentures.

 The client claims that these dental treatments result from a condition related to the automobile accident she suffered on September 29, 1989.

 The SAAQ pleads that the treatments claimed are not related to the bodily injuries sustained in the accident. It argued that the upper teeth were not affected by the accident and that the

client's malocclusion, which was the cause of the treatments claimed, was rather a personal

condition prior to the accident.

 The client explains that she suffered significant facial trauma in the accident. Initial x-rays reveal two fractures to the lower jaw.

 Because of these fractures, the client underwent surgery the day after the accident. On this occasion, she underwent an open reduction and stapling of the lower jaw fractures.

 A CT scan of the orbits, performed a few days after the accident, also confirmed a fracture of the side wall of the left maxillary sinus and a fracture of the malar bone near the orbital

region. No specific treatment is reported in the file in relation to these two fractures.

 Two weeks after surgery, the client consults the emergency room with the impression that the pins are loose. The physician notes that the occlusion appears adequate except for a lower

left pinning. He prescribes an elastic chin strap and refers her to Dr. Casaubon, who sees her

the next day.

 Dr. Casaubon then notes that the lower left arch is only attached to one tooth and may have become dislodged.

 Dr. Robert Chaput, the dentist treating the client at that time, answers a detailed medical questionnaire dated March 1, 1990. He indicates that he has been treating the client since

November 1, 1989.

 Dr. Chaput came to specify the dental problems related to the accident; two lost teeth (nos. 33, 32), six broken teeth (nos. 48, 45, 44, 35, 36) and six displaced teeth (nos. 14, 13, 12, 11,

21, 23).

 He mentions that the client then complained of pain in the upper and lower jaws and an inability to properly close the jaws together.

 The attending dentist also discusses the dental treatments already performed as well as those planned.

 On April 17, 1990, Dr. de Montigny, a dentist and professor at the Faculty of Dentistry of the Université de Montréal, produced a medical expertise report at the request of the SAAQ.

Dr. de Montigny conducts a clinical evaluation, a review of the file and a radiological update

before issuing his expert opinion.

 In his objective examination, he notes a bilateral posterior "crossbite" that tends towards a Class III (type of dental malocclusion).

 He also indicates a maximum mouth opening of 35 mm, restricted lateral movements of the mandible on the right side, palpation of the asymmetrical temporomandibular joint at mouth

opening, and a slight deviation to the left side at mouth opening. He attributes these

limitations of movement of the condyles and their malposition at the opening to the sequelae

caused by the fracture of the left condyle. He therefore grants an anatomophysiological

deficit (ADP) of 5% in relation to the condyle fracture.

 He is of the opinion that the fractures of the horizontal branch of the mandible have healed well, but that they leave as sequelae the presence of ligatures and the malpositioning of teeth

nos. 21 and 31, which will require minor orthodontic treatment.

 Regarding the fracture of the malar bone on the left side, he noted that the area of the malar bone on the left side is slightly more depressed than on the right side. He includes this in the

esthetic damage (EMP) of facial scars, estimated at 7%.

 In this report, Dr. de Montigny specifies that the major malocclusion ( bilateral posterior "crossbite") is not related to the accident.

 On November 7, 1990, Dr. Léon Daigle, dentist and maxillo-facial surgeon, sent an expert report at the request of the SAAQ.

 On his objective examination, Dr. Daigle mentions a crossbite that he considers to be in the process of being corrected by the orthodontic treatment the client was receiving at the time.

He indicates that the movements requested from the mandible are satisfactory, although

showing slight creaking. He indicates that the teeth of the upper jaw were not affected by the

accident.

 On March 4, 2005, Dr. Max Miller, maxillofacial surgeon, sent a letter to the SAAQ. He noted dental malocclusion and misalignment, which he believes is related to the

consolidation of old facial fractures. He believes that this may have developed post-

operatively or over time. He states that the client has a class III dento-skeletal malocclusion

with a complete crossbite on the left side and a deviation of the mandible on that side. These

alignment problems result in chewing problems that cause the client to be uncomfortable. He

recommends appropriate treatment.

 In a letter dated April 26, 2006, Dr. Miller provided further clarification. He states that this malocclusion, which is a "crossbite" on the left side, has gradually developed post-

operatively over time. He considers that this malocclusion is directly related to the trauma

that the client suffered. He is of the opinion that it is impossible for a patient who has not had

Lefort-type trauma or fractures to have an occlusion of this type. He added that the client's

after-effects are the result of her accident and that the client requires surgical and orthodontic

treatment.

 On January 21, 2016, Dr. Yves Gagnon, a dentist specializing in prosthodontics, wrote a detailed report. He meets with the client in February 2015 and specifies that her main

complaint is chronic jaw pain and difficulty chewing, which affect her quality of life. He also

believes that the client could benefit from a more physiological occlusion and that the

treatments required are complex. He proposes to provide the SAAQ with mounted models

of the client's teeth.

 In this report, it is indicated that the client wanted to have all her teeth extracted and thus obtain conventional removable dentures, but this specialized dentist considers that this would

probably be a serious mistake and that the skeletal relationship of the jaws should be

corrected first.

 Dr. Miller signs an additional report on February 27, 2017. He states that the client reports to him that her crossbite and mandibular deviation appeared as a result of the reduction of

facial fractures suffered in the past, and that this condition has gradually deteriorated to the

point where she has had great difficulty eating.

 Dr. Miller is performing a cone bean scan investigation to assess where the malalignment of the jaws comes from. This maxillofacial surgeon sees, from a bottom-up view, that the

fracture has not been anatomically reduced and that the left mandibular body is deviated

externally, which he believes explains the cross-occlusion.

 He adds that the condyles at the joints are normal, which eliminates hypercondylism or arthritis. The only possible explanation then is a traumatic condition, according to this

maxillofacial surgeon.

 Dr. Miller states in writing that he and Dr. Gagnon discussed and agreed on a treatment plan, which included a Lefort 1 osteotomy, removal of upper and lower teeth, four implants in

each jaw, and removable bar prostheses in the maxilla and mandible.

 On June 21, 2017, Dr. Miller wrote a report. Upon review of the client's previous record, he found that the client had suffered three fractures to the mandible, rather than the two initially

mentioned. He reported that on reading the file, there was an initial bilateral "crossbite" after

the accident and that the "crossbite" was then unilateral, showing that the teeth had moved.

 This maxillofacial surgeon also believes that claiming that only the mandible is affected is false. Radiological reports show a fracture of the malar bone that has not been reduced. He

considers that the fractures were not adequately reduced, since analysis of old photos of the

client shows that her face was symmetrical before the accident.

 On December 20, 2018, Dr. Rodier St-Louis, evaluating dentist for the SAAQ, reviewed the file and issued his expert opinion.

 He stated that the client had already undergone the treatments proposed by Dr. Miller and Dr. Gagnon, and this expert did not in any way question the necessity of the treatments

performed.

 He considers, however, that the treatments carried out are partially related to a personal condition since he is of the opinion that a malocclusion was present at the time of the

accident, referring to the expert opinions contemporaneous to this one. He adds that the

alteration in his condition following the accident was corrected by orthodontic treatment and

compensated accordingly by the SAAQ.

 As for the upper teeth, he specifies that they were neither lost nor fractured during the accident and that the current or recent condition is more, in his opinion, the unfavourable

evolution of a personal condition.

 The client recounts that before the accident, her teeth were not perfect, but she had no chewing problems. She says that the condition of her jaw and teeth has deteriorated over the

years and that the orthodontic treatment she received was never enough to restore her teeth

to their original position.

After the initial meeting with the client, Me Van Damme tells you that he will attempt to challenge

the SAAQ's decisions and that he believes he has a good chance of success.

Work to be completed:

 Using the knowledge acquired in the courses Administrative Procedures and Computerized Legal Research, please analyze the facts of the case and complete the legal framework of

the case (next page). Some research will probably be necessary ;

 Thereafter, please identify an appropriate model of act. You do not need to complete the act. You must find the model and send it to Me Van Damme so that he can fill it out himself.

Deadline for submission : ___12/07/2020 9h00____________________________________

DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

1. Field of Law

2. Applicable legislative

provisions

3. Useful Remedies and

Procedural Vehicles

4. Jurisdiction of the Court

5. Parties involved

6. Prior actions required and

time frame for action

7. Burden of proof

a) Plaintiff

b) Defendant

(if applicable)