2017 QCCA 44, 2017 QCCA 44

Cooperstock c. United Airlines Inc. 2017 QCCA 44 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026426-163 (500-17-074743-124) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: January 16, 2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE NICOLE DUVAL HESLER , C.J.Q. YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE , J.A. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE , J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL JEREMY COOPERSTOCK Mtre MOLLY KRISHTALKA (Renno Krishtalka) RESPONDENTS COUNSEL UNITED AIRLINES INC. JESSICA ROSSMAN JEFF WITTIG Mtre MARK BANTEY (Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP) On appeal from a judgment rendered on September 27, 2016 by the Honourable Justice Louis Crête of the Superior Court, District of Montreal

DESCRIPTION : Respondent’s application to dismiss the appeal (Article 365 C.C.P .) Application for a provisional stay of the injunction under appeal (Article 514 C.C.P .) Clerk: Robert Osadchuck Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 14:05 Commencement of the hearing. Identification of counsel. 14:06 Submissions by Mtre Khrishtalka. 14:55 Recess. 15:03 Resumption of the hearing. 15:03 By the Court: judgment – see page 3. Robert Osadchuck Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The appellant argues that the respondent had no right to an injunction in the circumstances of this case.

Essentially, he says that his freedom of expression is infringed by the injunction and that economic interference or interference with productivity in the exercise of this freedom, is a legitimate endeavour which ought not to be prohibited by injunction. [ 2 ] In the present case, all the injunction does is forbid Appellant to publish the names, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of United Airlines employees who have nothing to do with customer service. As a result of such publication, those employees are besieged by complainants whose complaints they can do nothing about.

The Respondent does not object to the publication of the names and information of employees who do handle customer complaints. [ 3 ] The injunction does not deprive Appellant of his freedom of expression.

It merely allows non-customer care employees to do the task they are hired to perform for United Airlines without being burdened with complaints which they cannot remedy. [ 4 ] In effect, the Appellant wants to continue harassing employees without anyone benefitting from the exercise: certainly not the customers who complain to someone who is unable to respond to their complaint and certainly not the employees who are not meant to handle such complaints. [ 5 ] It is our unanimous view that the appeal is doomed to fail. FOR THESE REASONS: [ 6 ] The Application to Dismiss the Appeal is GRANTED with legal costs;

[ 7 ] The Appeal is DISMISSED with legal costs. NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. MARIE-JOSÉE HOGUE, J.A.