Le comportement des parties à un contrat peut équivaloir à amendement, mais il faudra prouver que ce comportement dénote une intention claire de la part des parties

par Karim Renno
Irving Mitchell Kalichman s.e.n.c.r.l.

Au cours de la dernière semaine, nous avons discuté du comportement des parties comme méthode d'interprétation contractuelle. Or, l'amendement d'un contrat peut également résulter du comportement des parties, dans la mesure bien sûr où ce comportement dénote clairement une intention claire de la part des parties comme le souligne la Cour supérieure dans Khurana c. Fonduementale (2013 QCCS 6323).

 

Les Demandeurs dans cette affaire intentent des procédures en recouvrement de loyer contre la Défenderesse. Cette dernière conteste le recours au motif que les parties ont verbalement amendé le contrat de bail pour changer le montant du loyer à payer.

 

À l'appui de sa prétention, la Défenderesse signale qu'elle paie depuis quelque temps un montant de loyer de base qui est plus élevé que celui stipulé dans le bail. Elle demande à la Cour d'inférer de là que les parties ont convenu d'augmenter le loyer de base et d'exclure complètement le loyer excédentaire prévu au bail.

 

L'Honorable juge Louis Lacoursière rejette cette prétention de la Défenderesse. Il indique qu'il est possible pour les parties d'amender leur contrat par leur comportement, mais que ce comportement doit dénoter une intention claire de s'engager. Or, le juge Lacoursière ne retrouve pas de telle intention en l'espèce:

[42]        Fonduementale alleges that the conduct of the Plaintiffs, who waited until March  2013 to claim for the unpaid rent and stood idle, accepting month after month $7,500 and then $7,750 monthly cheques, is evidence of the existence of a verbal agreement that said cheques constituted the whole rent and an acknowledgment of the verbal amendment of the Lease. 

[43]        The Court disagrees. 

[44]        It is not sufficient for Fonduementale to allege that the conduct of the parties confirms that there was an amendment to the Lease. Articles 1425 and 1426 C.C.Q. are in the section “Interpretation of Contracts” of the Civil Code of Quebec and refer to “the common intention of the parties” and “in interpreting a contract”, in the context of a contract which needs interpretation. The Lease does not. 

[45]        In the circumstances, it fell upon the Defendant to adduce convincing evidence that the Plaintiffs had agreed to an amendment of the rent portion of the Lease. No such evidence was made. Faced with a lease whose terms are clear, the Court cannot infer from the fact that the Plaintiffs accepted monthly rent payments of $7,500 and $7,750 that they renounced their right to claim the additional rent. A renunciation to a clear right has to be clear. This is the law; this is also the essence of section 20 of the Lease. 

[46]        The Court rather concludes that the management of the collection of the rent for 4325 was, at best, sloppy. This was even evidenced in Court when Mr. Khanna had to acknowledge that the Informal Notices prepared by Mr. Singh were riddled with errors.  

[47]        This poor management of the collection of the rent under the Lease by or for the Plaintiffs explains the delay in taking action to enforce the provisions of section 5.3 thereof. It is almost by accident that Mr. Khanna realized that the Plaintiffs were owed rent. 

[48]        Had the terms of section 5.3 of the Lease been strictly adhered to, Fonduementale’s default might have been less costly to remedy because it might have taken remediary steps earlier. This, in itself, convinces the Court that it should not award the legal fees claimed by the Plaintiffs, nor interest in excess of legal interest. It does not, however, relieve the Defendant from its obligation to pay what it owes under the Lease, nor, obviously, does it relieve it from its default under the Lease.

Le texte intégral du jugement est disponible ici: http://bit.ly/1c3B7FS

Référence neutre: [2013] ABD 511