2020 QCCQ 13469, 2020 QCCQ 13469

Clark c. Groleau 2020 QCCQ 13469 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF IBERVILLE TOWN OF SAINT-JEAN-SUR-RICHELIEU Civil Division No: 755-32-009174-196 DATE: June 18, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUC HERVÉ THIBAUDEAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ANTOINE CLARK Plaintiff v.

LUCIE GROLEAU Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff Antoine Clark ( Mr. Clark ) claims $15,000.00 in damages from Defendant Mtre Lucie Groleau ( Mtre Groleau ). Mtre Groleau contests the claim and asks the Court to declare that the claim is abusive and that Mr. Clark is querulous. I- ISSUES TO DECIDE [ 2 ] Is Mtre Groleau committing a fault triggering her liability by sending a demand letter to Mr.

Clark on January 19, 2018, enjoining him not to present himself at the Centre Gertrude Lafrance, and by further discussing this letter with Mr. Clark’s lawyer? [ 3 ] If yes, what are the damages caused to Mr. Clark? [ 4 ] Is Mr. Clark’s claim abusive? [ 5 ] Should Mr. Clark be declared querulous? [ 6 ] The Court is of the opinion that Mr. Clark’s claim represents a demonstration of abuse. The claim is dismissed and Mr. Clark is declared querulous.

Table of contents I- ISSUES TO DECIDE ........................................................................................................... 1 II- CONTEXT .............................................................................................................................. 2 III- POSITION OF THE PARTIES ........................................................................................ 3 A- MR.

CLARK .................................................................................................................... 3 B- MTRE GROLEAU .......................................................................................................... 4 IV- ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 4 A- PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL LIABILITY ............................................................................. 4 B- APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES ....................................................................... 6 1- Recapitulative

Summary ........................................................................................... 6 2- The decision to send the letter of demand to Mr. Clark ....................................... 8 3- Analysis of Mtre Groleau’s conduct ........................................................................ 8 4- Damages ................................................................................................................... 10 5- Causal link ................................................................................................................. 10 6- Conclusion on Mr. Clark’s application .................................................................. 11

C- IS MR. CLARK’S DEMAND ABUSIVE? .................................................................. 11 D- THE DEMAND TO DECLARE MR. CLARK QUERULOUS ................................. 13 1- Criteria to be met for a declaration of quarrelsomeness ................................... 14 2- Should Mr. Clark be declared querulous? ........................................................... 16 3- Conclusion on the demand to declare Mr.

Clark querulous .............................. 25 V- CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 25 II- CONTEXT [ 7 ] Mr. Clark’s foster grandfather, the late Mr. Joseph Jones ( Mr. Jones ), was a war veteran. Before passing away in May 2018, he was receiving allowances from Veterans Affairs of Canada. In 2017, suffering of Alzheimer’s disease, Mr.

Jones is temporarily lodged at the Centre Gertrude Lafrance (the Centre ), a geriatric hospital managed by the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de la Montérégie-Centre ( CISSS ). [ 8 ] Mrs. Isabelle Carrier ( Mrs. Carrier ) works at the Centre. On January 17, 2018, after opening hours, Mr. Clark irrupts unannounced into her office, asking that documents be signed by Dr. Gertraud Herzog ( Dr. Herzog ). Mr. Clark needs a written confirmation that Mr. Jones is inapt so he can apply for an increase of his allowances. Mrs.

Carrier has just locked the premises and is alone in the office wing of the Centre. Mr. Clark’s presence is troubling her. She knows this is not the first time he is asking Dr. Herzog to sign similar documents. Mr. Clark has attended Dr. Herzog’s office many times, unannounced and unauthorized, for the same reason. Mrs. Carrier knows Dr. Herzog cannot sign these documents because she is no longer Mr. Jones’ geriatrist. [ 9 ] Mrs. Carrier tells Mr. Clark that Dr. Herzog will not sign the documents. Mr. Clark insists. He looks at her in the eyes and says “ je crois qu’on s’est mal compris ”. He claims that Dr.

Jean Rodrigue ( Dr. Rodrigue ), the CISSS’ Director, specifically asked Dr. Herzog to sign and if she does not, she will receive a demand letter and a complaint. As he leaves, Mr. Clark says that he will be back to pick up the signed documents. [ 10 ] Mrs. Carrier gives the envelope to Dr. Herzog the next day. The insurance papers contained therein [1] are already completed. They are signed by Mr. Jones and are dated January 25, 2018. They state that Mr. Jones is inapt for a period of 10 years. As predicted by Mrs. Carrier, Dr. Herzog refuses to sign them, not only because she no longer follows Mr.

Jones but also, because she does not agree with what they say. [ 11 ] Mrs. Carrier is shaken. She fears Mr. Clark’s return and is afraid that he may come back after opening hours. Her concerns are relayed to Mrs. Nathalie Ferguson ( Mrs. Ferguson ), Chief of the CISSS’ geriatric daycare. Dr. Herzog herself also discusses the situation with Mrs. Ferguson. After a few exchanges between Dr. Herzog, Mrs. Ferguson, Mtre Groleau, Dr. Rodrigue and Mrs. Carrier’s coordinator, Dr. Rodrigue instructs Mtre Groleau to write to Mr. Clark on behalf of the CISSS, asking him not to attend the Centre anymore.

A demand letter ( the letter ) is served to Mr. Clark on January 19, 2018 [2] . A copy is sent to Mr. Clark’s lawyer. The letter states: Vous vous êtes presenté au Centre d’hébergement Gertrude Lafrance, mercredi le 17 janvier 2018. Lors de votre visite, vous avez adopté un comportement harcelant, menaçant et vous avez élevé la voix, exigeant des signatures, par le Dre Herzog, de documents d’assurances déjà complétés de votre part. Vos agissements envers le personnel et les médecins du Centre d’hébergement Gertrude Lafrance ne sauraient être tolérés davantage.

Il va sans dire que les gestes que vous avez posés s’avèrent illégaux et constituent des contraventions claires aux normes de conduite généralement acceptées. Attendu que vous ne recevez aucun soin ou service à ce centre d’hébergement, nous vous demandons de ne plus vous y présenter. Aussi, compte tenu de la nature de vos derniers agissements envers les employés et médecins, nous avons mis en place des mesures exceptionnelles de sécurité.

Soyez d’ores et déjà avisé que si vous ne respectez pas notre demande de ne plus vous présenter au Centre d’hébergement Gertrude Lafrance et que vous adoptez un comportement inapproprié, nous prendrons tous les moyens nécessaires pour faire respecter les droits de nos usagers, employés et médecins, ce qui pourrait inclure une expulsion, le dépôt d’une plainte à la police ou tout autre recours légal approprié. VEUILLEZ AGIR EN CONSÉQUENCE [ 12 ] Mr. Clark files his application on July 5, 2018, claiming $15,000.00 from Mtre Groleau. He claims that by sending the letter, Mtre Groleau is falsely accusing him.

III- POSITION OF THE PARTIES A- MR. CLARK [ 13 ] Mr. Clark submits that he never threatened anyone and that the letter sent by Mtre Groleau is abusive. He states that by asking him not to attend the Centre and by discussing the letter with his lawyer, Mtre Groleau prevents him from obtaining confirmation that

Mr. Jones is inapt and, as a result, he cannot ask for an increase of Mr. Jones’ allowances. He argues that since he was paying for Mr. Jones’ caretakers, he personally sustains an economic prejudice. B- MTRE GROLEAU [ 14 ] Mtre Groleau denies liability. She pleads that she sent the letter at her employer’s request and that in view of the aggressiveness shown by Mr. Clark on his January 17 th visit and his past history with the CISSS, the later was justified to ask him not to attend the Centre. She adds that Mr.

Clark has been sending demand letters and legal claims to the CISSS and its personnel since 2012, all ill-founded or frivolous and that all of Mr. Clark’s recourses were dismissed. She also adds that Mr. Clark’s application is abusive and that Mr. Clark should be declared querulous. IV- ANALYSIS [ 15 ] To succeed, Mr. Clark must prove the facts on which his application is based, by preponderance of proof, as per articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Quebec [3] ( C.C.Q. ). Without reaching certainty [4] , Mr. Clark must adduce convincing evidence [5] .

The proof which renders a fact more probable than inexistent is sufficient [6] . However, a possibility that a fact may have happened, a hypothesis, is not enough [7] . The Court does not weigh on possibilities. Probable facts are those which bear a degree of probability of at least 50 % [8] . To obtain the dismissal of Mr. Clark’s application, Mtre Groleau must demonstrate, again by preponderant proof, that the right alleged by Mr. Clark does not exist. However, if Mr.

Clark does not meet his own burden, his application is dismissed and Mtre Groleau does not have anything to demonstrate. [ 16 ] The Court appreciates the probative value of the testimonies [9] . If the evidence is not convincing or is contradictory to the point where the Court cannot determine the truth, the issue is decided in view of the burden of proof [10] . The party on which lies the burden and which does not satisfy it sees his or her demand dismissed. A- PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL LIABILITY [ 17 ] Civil liability is, among others, governed by

article 1457 C.C.Q.: 1457. Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another. Where he is endowed with reason and fails in this duty, he is liable for any injury he causes to another by such fault and is bound to make reparation for the injury, whether it be bodily, moral or material in nature. He is also bound, in certain cases, to make reparation for injury caused to another by the act, omission or fault of another person or by the act of things in his custody. [ 18 ] Mr.

Clark must prove that by sending the letter and discussing it with his lawyer, Mtre Groleau breached a general or particular rule of conduct, causing him damages [11] . [ 19 ] The Code of Professional Conduct of Lawyers [12] (the Code ) edicts ethical obligations incumbent on lawyers. Even if this Court is not the proper forum to apply the said Code , these obligations can serve as a guide to analyse Mtre Groleau’s conduct [13] . [ 20 ] Lawyers are servants of justice. They owe loyalty to their clients and must protect their legitimate interests [14] .

They must act with integrity, respect, moderation and courtesy [15] . They must not encourage or facilitate a client’s unlawful conduct. They must not act in a manner which is detrimental to the administration of justice [16] and they shall dissuade their clients from taking an abusive recourse and inform them of the possible consequences [17] . [ 21 ] Lawyers must follow the requirements of good faith [18] and avoid filing procedures to harm or intimidate another [19] . They shall not mislead or abuse adverse parties’ good faith [20] .

They must preserve the honor, dignity and reputation of their profession and maintain the public’s confidence therein [21] . They must collaborate with colleagues in the interests of their clients and of the sound administration of justice [22] . They must remain fair play [23] and transparent at all times and have no hidden agenda [24] . They must foster a relationship of trust between the public and the administration of justice [25] . [ 22 ] Lawyers should have the liberty to accept unpopular or difficult mandates without fearing to do their work [26] .

They may plead any defendable position and resort to all legitimate means to demonstrate the rightfulness of their clients’ cases. They can show vigor if appropriate. They enjoy a relative immunity and they are entitled to error when interpreting the law, facts or writings or acting strategically [27] . They should not be in situations where fear of a civil lawsuit may conflict with the basic duties of their calling. [ 23 ] The bar is high to trigger a lawyer’s liability. To be faulty, a lawyer’s conduct must at least be rude, reckless, scandalous, outrageous or reprehensible [28] .

A lawyer can be liable by instituting a proceeding of no legal merit whatsoever [29] or in bad faith, intending to harm or intimidate [30] . A lawyer crosses the line by showing ignorance or carelessness and intentionally persisting in a process deemed to failure, to the point where the most ordinary lawyer, after analysis, would categorically refuse to institute such a recourse [31] . The lawyer cannot defend by simply stating she/he did what his client asked. The lawyer is not only a mandatary of his client, she/he is also a Court officer [32] . B- APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES

1- Recapitulative

Summary [ 24 ] Mr. Clark is well known by the CISSS, to whom he sent many claims since 2012 [33] . In February 2014, his grandmother, Mrs. Margaret Thurbert ( Mrs. Thurbert [34] ) is hospitalized at the Haut Richelieu Hospital (the Hospital ), an establishment managed by the CISSS. Mr. Clark then has a dispute with Dr. Frédéric Benny ( Dr. Benny ), Mrs. Thurbert’s treating doctor, concerning her treatment. Following this dispute, Mr. Clark files a complaint against Dr. Benny. Relations between Mr. Clark and the CISSS rapidly deteriorate. [ 25 ] Mtre Groleau works at the CISSS’ legal services.

She is aware of the claims sent by Mr. Clark in 2012. She then learns in February 2014 that Mr. Clark threatened two doctors of the Hospital, is being accused in criminal proceedings and that a Court order enjoins him not to approach Dr. Benny or Dr. Luc Deneault ( Dr. Deneault ) [35] . On March 14, 2014, Mtre Groleau contacts Mr. Clark and they agree that when Mr. Clark visits Mrs. Thurbert at the Hospital, he has to attend security to be escorted, to make sure he does not meet Dr. Benny or Dr. Deneault. Mtre Groleau attempts to confirm the same to Mr.

Clark in writing but her letter [36] cannot be remitted before March 19, 2014. Mr. Clark visits Mrs. Thurbert on March 16 and 27 without respecting this agreed upon protocol [37] . He also disrupts her medical care, challenging the doctors’ recommendations. [ 26 ] On March 24, 2014, Mr. Clark files a complaint [38] at the Commission des droits de la personne ( the Commission ) against the Hospital, Dr. Benny and Dr. Deneault. Mr. Clark alleges racial discrimination. Mtre Groleau is asked to handle the matter [39] . [ 27 ] On May 25, 2016, on behalf of Mr. Jones, Mr.

Clark addresses a demand letter to the CISSS, Dr. Benny and Dr. Deneault, claiming $45,000.00 for medical malpractice towards Mrs. Thurbert [40] . This letter states that all claims will be waived if Dr. Benny and Dr. Deneault withdraw their criminal complaint against Mr. Clark. A second letter is sent on June 1 st , 2016 [41] . Dr. Rodrigue asks Mtre Groleau’s assistance. The Collège des médecins is also involved and is worried that Mr. Clark’s conduct could raise security issues. On June 6 2016, Mr. Clark files a claim before this Court on behalf of Mr. Jones, against the CISSS, Dr. Benny and Dr.

Deneault, for medical malpractice [42] . [ 28 ] On July 1 st , 2016, on behalf of Mr. Jones, Mr. Clark sends a demand letter [43] to Mrs. Cynthia Mailloux ( Mrs. Mailloux ), social worker at CLSC Richelieu, which is affiliated to the CISSS. The letter alleges that Mrs. Mailloux refused to authorize a grounds keeping allowance to Mr. Jones and claims damages in an amount of $3,276.00. The demand before this Court is instituted on February 22 nd , 2018 [44] . Mtre Groleau is asked to look at the matter and to assist Mrs. Mailloux. [ 29 ] In March 2017, Mr. Jones is temporarily lodged at the Centre.

His treating doctor Dr. Michel Mailloux asks Dr. Herzog to evaluate him. Dr. Herzog declares Mr. Jones inapt [45] . Mr. Clark often visits Mr. Jones, unannounced and outside visiting hours. He would show up unannounced in Dr. Herzog’s office, located in a restricted area, to ask her to sign medical certificates, which she cannot do since she is not Mr. Jones’ treating doctor [46] . Dr. Herzog reports that Mr. Clark’s conduct disrupts the Centre’s personnel. On one occasion, Mr. Clark disappears with Mr.

Jones and brings him back at the Centre at 23h30, creating anxiety and worriedness for the personal of the Centre [47] . [ 30 ] On March 27, 2017, Mr. Clark faxes to the Centre a list of firearms Mr. Jones bequeaths him [48] , creating a state of fear amongst the personnel. Mtre Groleau is asked to intervene. Mr. Jones is transferred in the geriatric wing of the Hospital. Security guards are asked to be present. The situation is disclosed to the public curator, to protect the personnel and the treating doctors. Mr. Clark is furious and is threatening to sue the Centre. Mr.

Jones is willing to be lodged in a long term facility but Mr. Clark refuses. The personnel is becoming more and more afraid of Mr. Clark. On March 30, 2017, Mr. Jones is sent home with a follow-up by caregivers [49] . [ 31 ] The above summarizes the past experiences between Mr. Clark, the CISSS and Mtre Groleau. It is fair to say that when Mr. Clark attends the Centre on January 17, 2018, he is well known by the personnel, by Mrs. Carrier and by Mtre Groleau. 2- The decision to send the letter of demand to Mr. Clark [ 32 ] When Mrs.

Carrier discloses the January 17, 2018 situation to her coordinator, she fears that Mr. Clark would come back after opening hours and act aggressively. Mrs. Carrier’s coordinator reports the situation to her superior, Mrs. Ferguson. Dr. Herzog is also worried. She reports the situation to Dr. Rodrigue and Mtre Groleau. [ 33 ] Mrs. Ferguson’s work is to maintain peace and harmony at the Centre. She knows Mr. Clark’s past history with the CISSS and she knows that some employees of the Centre have security concerns regarding Mr. Clark. Mrs. Carrier and Dr. Herzog are both affected and fear for their security. Mrs.

Ferguson fears the latest events may disturb the personnel and that the CISSS’ liability as an employer could be at stake. She prefers that Mr. Clark does not come back to the Centre. Following her discussions with Dr. Rodrigue and Mtre Groleau, Dr. Rodrigue instructs Mtre Groleau to send the letter to Mr. Clark. Mtre Groleau prepares the letter and sends it. She also contacts Mr. Clark’s lawyer, Mtre Marie-Claire Blouin ( Mtre Blouin ), to inform her that the CISSS has decided to ask Mr.

Clark not to attend the Centre anymore. 3- Analysis of Mtre Groleau’s conduct [ 34 ] The Court must decide if the CISSS has defendable reasons to ask Mr. Clark not to attend the Center [50] . If the answer is yes, Mtre Groleau is not faulty by accepting the mandate and the analysis stops there. If the answer is no, the Court must then decide if Mtre Groleau is reckless in sending the demand letter. [ 35 ] The Centre is a public place.

The law states that “ no person may hinder a person from having access to a place to which the person has a right of access and where health services or social services are provided ” [51] . But this does not mean that this right of access is unlimited or can be exercised abusively. The Centre has restricted areas and opening hours. Mr. Clark does not respect these boundaries. One’s right to raise his fist stops at the nose of another [52] . Prudence has to be privileged over regret [53] .

[ 36 ] The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Clark crossed the line more than once. By his repeated claims against the CISSS and its personnel, his letters and interventions, he forged his own reputation. He repeatedly breached the rules by accessing the Hospital in disregard of a protocol he had agreed to. He accessed restricted areas of the Centre unauthorized and after opening hours. He caused fear and anxiety amongst the personnel. Important matters are handled at the Hospital and at the Centre. The personnel is concerned with patients’ care and patients are concerned with their health.

The CISSS has to provide everyone with a sound and secure environment. It is entitled to take reasonable measures to protect the safety of its personnel and of the public [54] . Mr. Clark’s letters to the CISSS often contain harsh language that can raise doubt and concern. A good example is the fax [55] stating the firearms in his possession. [ 37 ] The position expressed by the CISSS in the letter is not unfounded nor abusive. The CISSS has defendable reasons to ask Mr. Clark not to attend the Centre. The letter is not sent in bad faith, nor to intimidate. The CISSS’ motives are not deemed to failure.

Mtre Groleau is not at fault by accepting the mandate. In addition, by sending the letter, she does not act in a reckless, scandalous, outrageous or reprehensible manner [56] . [ 38 ] Mr. Clark blames Mtre Groleau for contacting Mtre Blouin. But Mr. Clark himself provides his lawyer’s identity as he remits the envelope to Mrs. Carrier. Mr. Clark being represented by attorney, Mtre Groleau cannot contact him directly. She must speak to Mtre Blouin [57] . Mtre Groleau has the courtesy and the transparency to inform Mtre Blouin she is sending the letter to Mr. Clark.

She establishes a communication channel that can be used in Mr. Clark’s future exchanges with the Centre. The Court cannot find any misconduct on Mtre Groleau’s part for communicating with Mtre Blouin. [ 39 ] Mr. Clark fails to demonstrate by preponderant evidence that Mtre Groleau is faulty by sending the letter or by contacting Mtre Blouin. 4- Damages [ 40 ] Had the Court reached the conclusion that Mtre Groleau is faulty (which is not the case), Mr. Clark also has to prove his damages. [ 41 ] First, Mr. Clark does not demonstrate that the alleged damages are his own.

The allowances increase would not have benefited to him, but only to Mr. Jones. Mrs. Françoise Salette of Veteran Affairs testifies at the hearing that Mr. Clark is not entitled to any amount as a natural caregiver. The program [58] does not apply to him. [ 42 ] Mr. Clark files many receipts [59] allegedly issued by caretakers who attended Mr. Jones’ care. They are all made to Mr. Jones’ name. Mr. Clark also files two letters from caretakers [60] who confirm providing care and doing household work for Mr. Jones. Even if these documents were admissible as evidence, they do not demonstrate payments made by Mr.

Clark. The receipts and invoices are made to Mr. Jones’ name. There is no convincing evidence that the amounts are disbursed by Mr. Clark. [ 43 ] Secondly, there is no convincing evidence of the amounts Mr. Jones is entitled to if declared inapt. Mr. Clark asks the Court to do the work of Veterans Affairs, to declare that Mr. Jones could obtain a certificate of inaptitude and was entitled to a disability allowance. But in the end, the fact of the matter remains that the damages sustained, if any, are not Mr. Clark’s. [ 44 ] Thirdly, Mr. Clark does not mitigate his alleged damages.

He does not attempt, even once, to communicate with the Centre or with the CISSS to ask what the normal channels are to obtain the certificate of inaptitude he is seeking. [ 45 ] Finally, Mr. Clark does not demonstrate that his damages are actual. He declares at the hearing that he is still in communication with Veterans Affairs, awaiting a ruling. In a letter received by the Court on April 27, 2020 [61] , Mr. Clark writes: “ my lawyers would have received the papers eventually as they did !!!!! ” (emphasis added). [ 46 ] Even if the Court was to find Mtre Groleau faulty, Mr.

Clark does not demonstrate that he sustains damages directly caused by the alleged fault. 5- Causal link [ 47 ] Mr. Clark must also demonstrate a causal link between the alleged fault and the alleged damages. [ 48 ] Mr. Clark states that had he been in possession of Dr. Herzog’s certificate of inaptitude issued in March 2017, he would have asked for an increase of Mr. Jones’ allowances. The Court does not see any causal link between this assumption and the fact that Mtre Groleau sent the demand letter. [ 49 ] First, this certificate is issued in March 2017, 10 months before the January 2018 events.

Paragraph [30] outlines the prevailing situation in March 2017. [ 50 ] Secondly, if Mr. Clark is entitled to a copy of Mr. Jones’ medical file, it is not the letter that is preventing him to take the appropriate steps to obtain it. He can ask the Centre, through normal communication channels and without forming threats against anyone, confirmation that Mr. Jones is inapt. The demand can be made by Mtre Blouin. There is no evidence that the letter prevents Mr. Clark from taking that route. Mr. Clark’s letter received on April 27, 2020 reveals that this is what finally happened. [ 51 ] Mr.

Clark fails to provide convincing evidence that there is a causal link between the alleged fault and the alleged damages. 6- Conclusion on Mr. Clark’s application [ 52 ] Mr. Clark has not presented any evidence demonstrating a fault, a damage and a causal link between the two. His application must thus be dismissed.

C- IS MR. CLARK’S DEMAND ABUSIVE? [ 53 ] Mtre Groleau is asking the Court to declare Mr. Clark’s application is abusive. [ 54 ]

Article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure [62] ( C.C.P. ) states that abuse of procedure may consist in a judicial application or a pleading that is clearly unfounded, frivolous or intended to delay or in conduct that is vexatious or quarrelsome. It may also consist in a use of procedure that is excessive or unreasonable or that causes prejudice to another person, or attempts to defeat the ends of justice.

Article 51 C.C.P. empowers the Courts, on their own initiative, to declare that a judicial application is abusive [63] . [ 55 ] Abuse is analysed objectively. It does not have to be accompanied by bad faith [64] , but a blameworthy conduct must exist [65] . An application can be abusive if it is instituted with temerity or if a party makes excessive use of the judicial process [66] . A proceeding is abusive when a reasonable person in the same situation concludes that it has no basis [67] , when there is misconduct by the filing party [68] , or when it is instituted with an intention to harm.

A proceeding may be abusive even if it is partially founded [69] or even well founded [70] . [ 56 ] Following the transmission of Mtre Groleau’s letter, Mr Clark files a complaint against her before the Québec Bar. Mtre Nicolas Bellemare ( Mtre Bellemare ), assistant syndic for the Québec Bar, informs him that the content of the letter is not problematic [71] , meaning that in the Bar’s opinion, Mtre Groleau is not breaching the Code . In spite of Mtre Bellemare’s answer, Mr. Clark persists and files his application against Mtre Groleau. Considering the Bar’s position following Mr. Clark’s complaint, Mr.

Clark knew or should have known from the start that his application was deemed to failure [72] . [ 57 ] Mr. Clark’s application is a demonstration of abuse, for several reasons. Reading it, a reasonable person would rapidly conclude that it has no merit. Its allegations are vague, incongruous and show no sustainable cause of action.

As an example: 1. 15,000 parce que = je connaitre pas qui est lucie groleau avec ces fausses accusations contre moi, cette madame essaie de mettre moi en prison et assassine mon character 2. 15,000 parce que je jamais fait aucune menace contre aucune personne ou employee au centre gertrude lafrance, hopital st-jean et clsc et toute autre emplyee que lucie groleau implique dans cette dossier. 3. La

partie Demanderesse demande 15,00 pour le assassination de mon character dans la lettre de lucie qui mentionne les menance et violence et autre chose criminel contre moi que, je absolutely comprendre pas + c’est pas mon character pas de toute !!!!! […] 7. Aux faits mentionnes ci-dessus, la

partie Demanderesse demande à la cour de entrée une jugement toute suit et en plus j’ai aucun billet pour stationnement, aucun constat infraction pour conduit illegal, selon le code de securite routier et aucun dossier criminal. [ 58 ] In Exhibit P-3, Mr. Clark states that he has successfully sued the Hospital whereas in reality his claim was dismissed. He also pretends that Mtre Groleau is systematically following his life and is responsible for Dr. Herzog’s refusal. Mr.

Clark writes in this exhibit P-3: I, have successfully sued Hospital St-Jean-sur-Richelieu and the lawyer for the hospital is Lucie Groleau to my understanding, she is mad at me and trying to get me. Since, I have successfully sued the doctor (Fred Benny) et al – for his negligence in the car of my family member. I have been stopped once a week by the local police force (St-Jean cops - […] – Lucie Groleau friends) for absolutely no reason.

I have been informed from other police officer from Chambly and friends who are cops in Quebec that lawyer Lucie Groleau – whom I never met – is a white French – pure lien – crypto – facist – nazi – like – racist lilly white Quebecois women who is hell – bent to see that I am persecuted and prosecuted and incarcerated criminally – through and through by all legal and illegal means at her legal disposal = what an abuse of power – what kind of lawyer and country this is . [73] (emphasis added) [ 59 ] These accusations towards Mtre Groleau are found in several exhibits filed by Mr.

Clark [74] and in several letters he sent to the Court [75] . Not only these accusations are unfounded and frivolous, they are also vexatious and quarrelsome. [ 60 ] The filing of these letters and exhibits is connotative of an abusive conduct. Mr. Clark’s accusations are never supported by any evidence during the trial. As such, these accusations defeat the ends of justice. During the hearing, the Court invites Mr. Clark several times to adduce evidence that is relevant to his case. The hearing lasts more than two full days and Mr.

Clark fails to demonstrate any factual element that would impact on Mtre Groleau’s liability. [ 61 ] Even though Mr. Clark pleads that the facts stated in the letter are false, his own witnesses confirm the opposite and convince the Court that the CISSS has more than justifiable reasons to ask Mtre Groleau to send the letter. Mr. Clark then objects to these testimonies, not because they are not admissible, but because he does not agree. He interrupts his witnesses repeatedly, attempting to rectify their answers and give his own version of the facts. [ 62 ] During Dr. Herzog’s testimony, Mr.

Clark has the temerity to declare that if his application is dismissed, his next one is against her. This threat is an attempt to intimidate Dr. Herzog during her testimony. This vexatious and quarrelsome conduct is a manifestation of abuse. [ 63 ] The above establishes summarily that Mr. Clark’s application, his proceedings and his vexatious conduct before the Court represent an abuse of procedure. As per

article 52 C.C.P. , the onus is on Mr. Clark to show that his conduct is not excessive or unreasonable and is justified in law. Mr. Clark fails to make this demonstration.

[ 64 ] The Court concludes that Mr. Clark’s proceedings represent an excessive and unreasonable use of the judicial process. Mr. Clark also demonstrates a vexatious and quarrelsome conduct, amounting to abuse as defined in

article 51 C.C.P. For these reasons, Mr. Clark’s application must be declared abusive. D- THE DEMAND TO DECLARE MR. CLARK QUERULOUS [ 65 ] Mtre Groleau is also asking the Court to declare Mr. Clark querulous. [ 66 ] Mr. Clark’s application is one of many recourses instituted against the CISSS or its representatives, related directly or indirectly to the medical care of his grandparents. All of them were dismissed. Other recourses are still pending against other defendants, unrelated to the CISSS. Mtre Groleau filed a list of 21 recourses instituted by Mr. Clark since 2016 [76] . Mr.

Clark pretends that Mtre Groleau is alleging false Court cases. 1- Criteria to be met for a declaration of quarrelsomeness [ 67 ] Mtre Groleau’s demand for a declaration of quarrelsomeness relies on

article 55 C.C.P.

Article 55 is part of a C.C.P.

section entitled “ power to impose sanctions for abuse of procedure ” [77] . It edicts quarrelsomeness’ capital sanction which is the possibility to prohibit someone to institute an application or to present a pleading in an ongoing proceeding, except with the authorization of the chief justice. [ 68 ] The power to prevent the filing of legal proceedings without authorization is inherent to the exercise of judicial functions. It existed before the enactment of articles 51 & ss. C.C.P. [78] or their ancestor articles 54.1 & ss. of the former Code of Civil Procedure [79] .

These provisions do not change the criteria already stated by the doctrine [80] and by the case law [81] for the determination of a quarrelsome conduct [82] . [ 69 ] Those criteria are: 1º The querulous litigator shows persistency and narcissism; 2º He generally acts as a plaintiff; 3º He multiplies vexatious recourses, often filing complaints against Court officers, lawyers, judiciary personnel or even judges who found him wrong, alleging partiality and ethical breaches; 4º In spite of his repeated failures, he reiterates the same questions and seeks the same results by successive and furthering recourses; 5º His arguments show inventiveness and incongruity.

Even if they have a legal form, they flirt with irrationality; 6º His repeated defeats will result in his incapacity to pay the legal costs; 7º He brings into appeal or seeks review or revocation of most (if not all) of the decisions that are unfavourable to him; 8º He is self-represented; 9º His briefs are often filed with insults, attacks or offenses; 10° He seeks monetary condemnations that are disproportionate or exaggerated in view of the real alleged prejudice and adds atypical conclusions bearing no relation with the debate at stake; 11° He cannot respect the authority of the Courts to which he is seeking access; 12° He interprets his losses as a confirmation that justice is not rendered [83] . [ 70 ] A finding of quarrelsomeness is no mathematical task.

The Court does not count and add the criteria that are met [84] . Of course, as more criteria are met, quarrelsomeness emerges and becomes palpable. However, it is the global analysis that counts [85] . A person becomes querulous when abusing the system by multiplying procedures and “ exercising litigious rights in an excessive or unreasonable manner ” [86] , making an inappropriate use of the judicial process [87] .

Article 51 C.C.P. condemns the “ use of procedure that is excessive or unreasonable ” in that it denatures the finality of the judicial system [88] and bullies the society by depriving it of resources that can be better used. In its analysis, the Court can consider other recourses filed by a party [89] . [ 71 ] Some say quarrelsomeness is a state of mind [90] or even a pathology [91] . But before that, quarrelsomeness manifests itself by an abusive use of the judicial system, hindering its good process. A proceeding will not be authorized when it represents such an abuse.

Such is the case when there is a sustained flow of successive and abusive recourses. The objective is not to deprive someone of his right to plead his case but to prevent the undue monopoly of the Court’s resources by proceedings that are deemed to failure and do not make sense. [ 72 ] A declaration of quarrelsomeness is a screening mechanism of the recourses instituted by a querulous person. Its tampers the excessive and unreasonable procedural zeal that characterises such a person. It is more a control process than a prohibition to act in justice [92] .

Addressing the Courts is resorting to a public service [93] . A quarrelsome conduct harms the good process and accessibility of the system. [ 73 ] The temporality of successive claims may be considered [94] . Repeated filing of doubtful proceedings often characterises the querulous person. A person who seeks exaggerated condemnations, multiplying proceedings [95] in a disproportionate, vexatious or

abusive manner [96] , with contemptuous or uncompromising attitude [97] , denigrating the Courts’ authority or using legal proceedings to threaten or intimidate [98] may be declared querulous. One does not have to be of bad faith to be querulous [99] . 2- Should Mr. Clark be declared querulous? 1º The querulous litigator shows persistency and narcissism; [ 74 ] Mr. Clark institutes in 2014 a first series of recourses related to Mrs. Thurbert’s care. On August 28, 2014, he files a complaint before the Commission against the Hospital, Dr. Deneault and Dr.

Benny [100] , which is dismissed for lack of evidence on March 3, 2016 [101] . On May 30, 2016, on behalf of Mr. Jones and Mrs. Thurlbert, he files an application before this Court against the same parties [102] . On February 22, 2018, he files against Mrs. Mailloux, a caretaker [103] . These applications are both dismissed by Justice Luc Poirier, J.C.Q., respectively on February 2, 2018 [104] and March 21, 2019 [105] . [ 75 ] In the meanwhile, on March 22 nd , 2018, Mr. Clark files an application against Mrs. Mélanie Beauregard, again on behalf of Mr. Jones and Mrs. Thurlbert, alleging that Mrs.

Beauregard entered Mr. Jones’ domicile without his consent [106] . On March 21, 2019, this application is dismissed by Justice Luc Poirier, J.C.Q., for lack of interest. [ 76 ] In parallel, Mr. Clark files a second series of recourses related to Mtre Groleau’s letter. In February 2018, he files a complaint against Mtre Groleau before the Québec Bar [107] , which is rejected on June 6, 2018 [108] . On July 7, 2018, he files his application in the present file. In May 2019, he files a second complaint against Mtre Groleau before the Bar [109] . Since Mr.

Clark does not cooperate in the investigation, the Bar closes its file [110] . On January 27, 2020, after the first day of hearing in the present file, Mr. Clark files a third complaint against Mtre Groleau, in which he accuses her of filing false cases in support of her demand for declaration of quarrelsomeness [111] . [ 77 ] Between May and December 2019, Mr. Clark undertakes a third series of claims related to a dispute in April 2018 with a security guard of the customs in Lacolle [112] ( the Lacolle incident ).

He alleges that racism prompted the security guard to falsely state that he threatened him physically. Charges are brought against Mr. Clark, who is acquitted in January 2019. Alleging that false accusations were brought against him and that two witnesses perjured themselves, Mr. Clark files nine applications, claiming $15,000.00 in each file, for a total amount of $135,000.00 [113] . [ 78 ] In two of these [114] , Mr. Clark alleges that the guards who accused him are racists and that the accusations made him lose his work.

He also undertook a recourse against their employer [115] and two more [116] against the police officers involved in the investigation, alleging they were also racists and refused to speak to him in English. In two other recourses [117] filed against the principals of his ex-employer, he alleges a discriminatory dismissal [118] . In another one, the only conduct alleged against the defendant, a customs officer, is racism towards other people [119] . [ 79 ] Two more applications are filed by Mr. Clark on August 22, 2019, alleging that defendants are in possession of goods bequeathed to him by Mr.

Jones [120] . [ 80 ] The documents filed by Mtre Groleau [121] confirm that between May 2016 and December 2019, Mr. Clark institutes 16 recourses before this Court. Most of these are part of a series of recourses. In most of them, Mr. Clark alleges that he is a victim [122] . Their analysis demonstrates Mr. Clark’s exaggerated persistency. In addition, since 2014, Mr. Clark files five complaints before administrative organisms, related to three particular events. Mr. Clark denies having instituted the recourses alleged by Mtre Groleau [123] . The Court records and proceedings speak by themselves [124] . Mr.

Clark’s pretention that Mtre Groleau filed false Court cases is not supported by the evidence. [ 81 ] When Mr. Clark attends the Centre on January 17, 2018, the documents he gives Mrs. Carrier state “ si vous signe pas cette formular; mise en demeure pour 15,000 et plus plainte au Collège des médecins pour negligence civil ” [125] . Mr. Clark considers filing a recourse against Dr. Herzog even before she refuses to sign the documents. [ 82 ] At the hearing, Mr. Clark states that if his application is dismissed, he will file another one against Dr. Herzog. Mr. Clark’s crusade does not seem to be over.

His sustained flow of successive recourses and complaints gravitating around the same events convinces the Court that there are high probabilities that he keeps on filing claims against representatives of the CISSS . Mr. Clark has a tendency to send a demand letter, file a complaint or file a new recourse each time each time he considers being victim of an injustice [126] . Is Boulajfene , a declaration of quarrelsomeness is issued against a party who declares his intention to undertake further recourses [127] . [ 83 ] The Court concludes that this criteria is met.

In itself, it justifies the issuance of an order prohibiting Mr. Clark to file any further recourse , except with the authorization of and subject to the conditions determined by the Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec. 2º He generally acts as a plaintiff; [ 84 ] Mr. Clark is plaintiff or complainant in 21 of the 25 recourses to which he is a party. In other instances, he has filed revocation procedures or cross demands.

This criteria is also satisfied. 3º He multiplies vexatious recourses, often filing complaints against Court officers, lawyers, judiciary personnel or even judges who found him wrong, alleging partiality and ethical breaches; [ 85 ] Mr. Clark filed two complaints before the Québec Bar against Mtre Groleau, before and after filing the present claim, without success [128] . On January 27, 2020, between the two days of hearing of this case, he files a third complaint against her [129] , blaming her for asking the Court to declare him querulous and accusing her of presenting false court cases.

As stated in paragraph [80], no evidence supports this accusation. This complaint is vexatious and is filed to intimidate Mtre Groleau.

[ 86 ] On January 17, 2018, Mr. Clark already plans to file against Dr. Herzog if she does not sign the documents. He knew that his request would be denied. If not, he would not write on the envelope that Dr. Herzog will receive a demand letter and a complaint if she refuses to sign. This threat is reiterated at the hearing (see paragraph [82]). Mr. Clark is always prepared to take legal action or to threaten doing so when his demands are not met. He even sent a demand letter to a judge [130] . These manoeuvers are attempts to intimidate. They confirm Mr.

Clark’s vexatious and quarrelsome conduct. [ 87 ] Another example is the letter sent to the CISSS on May 25, 2016 [131] in which Mr. Clark states that the recourses against Dr. Benny, Dr. Deneault and the CISSS will be waived if the criminal complaints against him are withdrawn. Not only is this

an act of intimidation but in addition, its legality could be challenged [132] . [ 88 ] Mr. Clark does not hesitate to allege partiality of the judges who hear his recourses. He asked for the recusal of Justice Luc Poirier, J.C.Q., alleging racism and conflicting interests [133] . He contested Mtre Groleau’s demand to transfer the present file in the District of Iberville for the same motives [134] . He also asked for the recusal of an administrative judge of the Régie du logement (the Régie ) for similar reasons [135] . [ 89 ] Mr.

Clark’s complaints and threats are vexatious and quarrelsome. [ 90 ] This criteria is also satisfied. 4º In spite of his repeated failures, he reiterates the same questions and seeks the same results by successive and furthering recourses; [ 91 ] Directly or indirectly, Mr. Clark contests the results of most of the decisions rendered against him. An example is Mr. Clark’s complaint before the Commission, rejected on March 3, 2016 [136] . Mr. Clark’s application against the Hospital, Dr. Deneault and Dr. Benny is filed shortly after, on May 30, 2016. In a similar manner, Mr.

Clark’s first complaint before the Bar against Mtre Groleau is rejected on June 6, 2018 [137] . Mr. Clark files his application against Mtre Groleau a month later (see paragraph [56]). [ 92 ] Mr. Clark has filed a demand in revocation of a decision rendered against him by the Régie. In a decision dated January 31, 2017, the administrative Judge André Monty writes that by this demand, Mr. Clark is seeking a new assessment of the evidence because he is not satisfied of the decision rendered. Mr. Clark’s demand is found abusive. Judge Monty prohibits the institution of any further proceeding by Mr.

Clark [138] . [ 93 ] On December 20, 2019 and January 6, 2020, Mr. Clark writes to the Clerk of this Court asking for the revocation and rectification of two judgments rendered by Justice Luc Poirier in two files involving the CISSS and its representatives [139] . In these letters, Mr. Clarks states that judges who render judgment are sexist, racist and biased. [ 94 ] On January 16, 2020, during Dr. Herzog’s testimony, Mr. Clark states that if his demand is not granted, he will sue Dr. Herzog (see paragraphs [61], [80] and [86]). [ 95 ] In a letter to the Court dated February 20, 2020 [140] , Mr.

Clark states that he will file a complaint against Mtre Groleau before the Bar for each false case Mtre Groleau presented to the Court and will claim $1 000,0.00 for each of these. [ 96 ] The evidence presented convinces the Court that Mr. Clark will keep on filing claims or complaints based on the same facts and the same allegations or will keep on asking the revocation of decisions already rendered or to be rendered. [ 97 ] The Court concludes that this criteria is met. In itself, it justifies the issuance of a declaration of quarrelsomeness prohibiting Mr.

Clark to file further recourses [141] . 5º His arguments show inventiveness and incongruity. Even if they have a legal form, they flirt with irrationality; [ 98 ] Mr. Clark’s originating application is hardly understandable. It alleges that Mtre Groleau makes false accusations of violence against him, wants to see him imprisoned and “ assassinates his character ” [142] . It states that Mtre Groleau is racist, abuses of her powers and confuses him with someone else. There is no mention whatsoever of Mr. Clark being prevented to ask for an increase of Mr.

Jones’ allowances, which is his main argument at the hearing. [ 99 ] At the hearing, Mr. Clark calls as a witness Mr. Tom Hannah ( Mr. Hannah ). Mr. Hannah testifies for more than one hour on Mr. Clark being arrested in front of his home for a driving infraction. The argument raised by Mr. Clark to justify Mr. Hannah’s testimony gravitates, again, around the allegation that he is victim of racism, an argument raised in most of his claims or letters [143] he sends to the Court. [ 100 ] Mr. Clark has no reason to assign Mr. Hannah. His testimony is of no use for the Court. Mr.

Clark’s arrest for a driving infraction has no relevancy with the present case which is founded on an alleged professional fault. Mr. Hannah could not even hear the exchange between Mr. Clark and the police officer. Mr. Hannah’s testimony still occupies a great part of the January 16 th hearing, during which the Court invites Mr. Clark several times to adduce evidence which is relevant to the fault alleged against Mtre Groleau. None is heard.

This is an abusive use of the judicial system. [ 101 ] The Court concludes that this criteria is met. 6º His repeated defeats will result in his incapacity to pay the legal costs associated thereto; [ 102 ] There is no conclusive evidence concerning this criteria. 7º He brings into appeal or seeks review or revocation of most (if not all) of the decisions that are unfavourable to him;

[ 103 ] As stated in paragraph [93], on December 20, 2019 and January 6, 2020, Mr. Clark asks for the revocation and rectification of two judgments rendered by Justice Luc Poirier [144] . He alleges that Justice Poirier erred in dismissing his claims because he did not demonstrate he could act on behalf of Mr. Jones and/or Mrs. Thurbert. Mr. Clark states that he is the sole heir of Mr. Jones and Mrs. Thurbert. These arguments were already presented before Justice Poirier. A demand in revocation is not an appeal. Nor is a demand for rectification.

These demands are brought between 9 and 23 months of the judgments rendered, which is an excessive delay. Another demand in revocation is filed by Mr. Clark on December 20, 2019, in relation to a judgment rendered 10 years before [145] . This demand is dismissed by Justice Luc Poirier on January 8, 2020. By these proceedings, Mr. Clark is making an inappropriate use of the judicial system. [ 104 ] Mr. Clark has also filed a demand for revocation of a decision of the Régie (see paragraph [92]) and another one in which he obtained a judgment by default and was not satisfied of the decision rendered [146] .

Both demands were dismissed. In another file before the Régie, Mr. Clark has asked the recusal of an administrative Judge. This demand is dismissed on January 8, 2019 [147] . The administrative Judge Serge Adam states in his motives that Mr. Clark is asking for the recusal because he is not satisfied of a previous decision rendered by the Judge. [ 105 ] In another file where Mr. Clark’s lawyer claims his legal fees [148] , judgment is rendered by default against Mr. Clark on January 25, 2018. Mr. Clark asks the revocation of the judgment on February 7, 2018, alleging that he received a different application.

The demand for revocation is dismissed on February 18, 2018, for the motive that the minutes of service demonstrate that the right application was served. [ 106 ] The Court concludes that this criteria is met. 8º He is self-represented; [ 107 ] Although Mr. Clark used lawyers in the past and refers to several lawyers in his letters, all his recourses are filed before the Small Claims Division of this Court, where no lawyers are allowed. However, many of Mr. Clark’s letters of demand, if not all, claim amounts that are well over the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division. None of Mr.

Clark’s recourses are taken before the Civil Division. In some of these letters, Mr. Clark even pretends he is a lawyer himself, a pretention also expressed to Mtre Groleau [149] . [ 108 ] When leaving the documents to Mrs. Carrier on January 17, 2018, Mr. Clark also leaves Mtre Blouin’s coordinates. Any reasonable person would conclude that Mr. Clark wishes that future communications be conducted through Mtre Blouin. However, when Mtre Groleau contacts Mtre Blouin, Mr. Clark sees this as a professional fault. [ 109 ] The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Clark insists to lead his crusades himself.

The Court concludes that this criteria is met. 9º His briefs are often filed with insults, attacks or offenses; [ 110 ] In many proceedings or letters, including those sent to the Court [150] or to the Bar [151] , and even verbally during a case management conference on January 14, 2020, Mr. Clark uses vulgar language and makes accusations of racism towards either the judges who have heard his cases, Mtre Groleau or the defendant in a particular file. [ 111 ] One of Mr.

Clark’s letters to Mtre Groleau states “ I […] know very good and bad powerful people too!!! ” [152] In his proceedings or letters sent to the Court [153] , Mr. Clark uses language that is highly inappropriate in a judiciary proceeding and that will not be quoted in this judgment [154] . These are a clear attack to Mtre Groleau, accusing her of lying to the Court and submitting false evidence. The fact that Mr. Clark represents himself does not allow him to ignore the standards of conducts expected from a courteous citizen [155] . [ 112 ] Mr.

Clark does not hesitate to write to the Court and submit additional arguments between the first and second day of the hearing, and even after the case is taken under advisement [156] . Occasionally, he re-sends letters already sent in the present file or in other files. Not only Mr. Clark does not send a copy of these letters to Mtre Groleau but he asks that they be filed under seal. Mtre Groleau has to address the Court twice to obtain a copy of those documents [157] . This shows disrespect to the judicial process.

Adversoriality and transparency are key rules in judicial proceedings [158] . [ 113 ] With other documents sent to the Court after the hearing [159] , Mr. Clark includes a letter sent to the Régie, in which he uses inappropriate language and alleges racism towards the administrative judge who heard a case involving him. This is the same judge that Mr. Clark asked to recuse (see paragraph [104]). This confirms Mr. Clark’s vexatious and quarrelsome conduct and his lack of respect for the judicial process. [ 114 ] Other documents sent by Mr.

Clark are condolence cards allegedly sent to his family by the personnel of the CISSS when Mrs. Thurbert‘s passed away. Mr. Clark wants the Court to conclude from these that no one at the CISSS has anything against him. These cards are not relevant to the present case. In addition to being hear-say, they do not relate to a fault on Mtre Groleau’s part. In addition, no demand to re-open the hearing is made.

The Court does not accept them as evidence. [ 115 ] Also, since this envelope is sent after the case is taken under advisement, it also hinders the confidential and private character of the judge’s advisement period [160] . The same conclusion applies to the letter received on April 27, 2020 [161] , in which Mr. Clark accuses Mrs. Ferguson, Mrs. Carrier and Dr. Herzog of perjury. [ 116 ] This criteria is met.

In itself, it justifies the issuance of the order sought by Mtre Groleau. 10° He seeks monetary condemnations that are disproportionate or exaggerated in view of the real alleged prejudice and adds atypical conclusions bearing no relation with the debate at stake; [ 117 ] Mr. Clarks’ applications are all filed before the Small Claims Division of this Court and, as a result, do not exceed $15,000.00. However, the demand letters he sends often claim amounts that are exaggerated. The first letters sent to the Hospital claimed

$1,000,000.00 for malpractice. No proceedings were ever instituted. [ 118 ] A good example of Mr. Clark’s exaggeration is the series of nine applications related to the Lacolle incident [162] , claiming $15,000.00 in each, totaling $135,000.00 [163] . Another example is the February 20, 2020 letter [164] , in which he states that he will claim $1,000.00 from Mtre Groleau for each false case presented during the hearing. [ 119 ] Mr. Clark adds allegations of racism to most of his claims.

See the demands for rectification filed against two judgments rendered by Justice Luc Poirier J.C.Q. (see paragraph [103]), in which Mr. Clark writes : “ demande de rectification dans l’éventualité ou il y a une erreur clerical (sic) ou par le greffier spécialiste et ou inexperience ou une juge racists – sexists ou bais (sic)” [165] . [ 120 ] Another example is the letter to the Régie (see paragraphs [104] and [113]). Also, in the present file, many of Mr. Clark’s letters make direct [166] or indirect [167] accusations of racism (see paragraph [110]). The complaint against Dr. Deneault and Dr.

Benny before the Commission, which was based on that particular ground, is rejected on May 31, 2016, for lack of evidence [168] . [ 121 ] These allegations bear no relation with the debates Mr. Clark wishes to institute before the Court. The Court concludes that this criteria is met. 11° He cannot respect the authority of the Courts to which he is seeking access; [ 122 ] Mr. Clark frequently interrupts the witnesses (see paragraph [61]) or even Mtre Groleau [169] . This, again, shows disrespect for the Court and for the judicial process. [ 123 ] Mr.

Clark alleges in several documents that the judicial system is biased and that judges who heard his cases have discriminatory intentions. In addition, he does not respect his January 16, 2020 undertaking, renewed on February 21, by which he undertook not to file judicial proceedings and consented to a provisory prohibition. On April 29 2020, he files an inscription by default in file No. 505-32-037882-199.

These elements show his disrespect for the administration of justice. [ 124 ] The Court concludes that this criteria is met. 12° He interprets his losses as a confirmation that justice is not rendered. [ 125 ] See criteria #7 hereinabove, paragraphs [103]-[106]. See also paragraph [123]. See also exhibit D-26, a

summary of a message left by Mr. Clark to Mtre Bellemare, in which Mr. Clark blames the Bar for rejecting his complaint against Mtre Groleau. [ 126 ] The Court concludes that this criteria is met. 3- Conclusion on the demand to declare Mr. Clark querulous [ 127 ] The analysis of the criteria, particularly criteria 1, 4 and 9, lead to the conclusion that Mr. Clark does not respect the judicial system and abuses of it. He uses proceedings in a manner that is excessive and unreasonable. He adopts a quarrelsome and vexatious conduct. The judiciary resources are limited and must be used with parsimony. Mr.

Clark does not respect these principles. This causes prejudice to other citizens in need of access to justice. This is why he is prohibited from instituting any further recourse, except with the authorization of the Chief Justice of this Court. [ 128 ] The undersigned judge remains seized of the other instances instituted by Mr. Clark that are still pending [170] . It is necessary to closely monitor them to ensure that they do not unduly monopolize judiciary resources and to ensure their prompt resolution. V- CONCLUSION [ 129 ] The Court concludes that Mr.

Clark’s application must be dismissed with costs of justice. Mr. Clark’s application is declared abusive and Mr. Clark is declared querulous. [ 130 ] FOR THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT : [ 131 ] DISMISSES the application of plaintiff Antoine Clark; [ 132 ] DECLARES that the application of Antoine Clark is abusive; [ 133 ] DECLARES plaintiff Antoine Clark querulous and subject to authorization within the meaning of

article 42 of the Regulation of the Court of Québec [171] ; [ 134 ] PROHIBITS plaintiff Antoine Clark from filing any application or other proceeding before the Court of Quebec or before any provincial administrative body, except with the authorization of and subject to the conditions determined by the Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec; [ 135 ] ORDERS to the Clerk of this Court to send to the Ministère de la Justice du Québec , for entry into the public register of persons found to be quarrelsome, a copy of the present order; [ 136 ] WITH LEGAL COSTS IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT LUCIE GROLEAU .

__________________________________ LUC HERVÉ THIBAUDEAU, J.C.Q. Dates of hearing: January 16 and February 21, 2020 [11] Samak c. Commission scolaire de Laval, 2009 QCCS 4381, par. 72. [13] Succession MacDonald v. Martin, (SCC), [1990] 3 R.C.S. 1235, 1245-1246; Deraspe c. Zinc électrolytique duCanada ltée, 2015 QCCS 4285, par. 67 (appeal dismissed : 2018 QCCA 256). [14]

Preamble and

article 111 of the Code; Honda Canada Finance Inc. c. Heintz Coichy, 2019 QCCQ 1996, par. 89-90; Lemieux Nolet,Comptables professionnels agrees, s.e.n.c.r.l. c. Gestion immobiliere Gendron Perreault inc., 2015 QCCQ 8830, par. 18. [15]

Article 4 of the Code; Groupe Simtec 3000 inc. c. KF Construction inc., 2018 QCCS 5704, par. 21 ; Lavoie c. Darveau, 2018QCCQ 5536, par. 60. [17]

Article 41 of the Code; Chélin c. Thibault, 2018 QCCQ 3830, par, 13-14. [18] Articles 6 and 7 C.C.Q.; Sylvette GUILLEMARD et Severine NETEREY, Comprendre la procédure civile québécoise, 2e éd.,Montréal, Éditions Yvon Blais, 2017, p. 66, par. 107. [19]

Article 113 of the Code; Cherbina c. Construction Pole inc., 2019 QCCS 5674, par. 36 ; Honda Canada Finance Inc. c. HeintzCoichy, 2019 QCCQ 1996, par. 92; Dugas c. Cuierrier Besner, 2016 QCCQ 15503, par. 39. [20]

Article 119 of the Code; Pigeon c. Delisle, 2018 QCCQ 7861, par. 48; Cléroux c. Centre de services partagés du Québec, 2016QCCQ 6229, par. 35; Di Raddo c. Di Raddo, 2015 QCCS 6496, par. 19-20. [21]

Article 129 of the Code; Harvey c. Poliquin, 2019 QCCQ 672, par. 26. [25]

Article 111 of the Code; Personnelle, Assurances générales inc. c. Chilmeran, 2020 QCCQ 199, par. 49; Drolet-Savoie c. Tribunaldes professions, 2017 QCCA 842, par. 40. [26] D.P. c. Librati, 2010 QCCS 2322, par. 9. [27] D.P. c. Librati, 2010 QCCS 2322, par. 3-4 ; Jean-Louis Baudouin et Patrice Deslauriers, La responsabilité civile, 7e édition, Vol. II,Cowansville, Éditions Yvon Blais, 2007, p. 126, par. 2-124. [28] Young c. Young, (SCC), [1993] 4 RCS 3, 134; Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. c. Michalakopoulos, , par. 3 & 174(C.S.); Lavigne c.

Caisse, 2019 QCCQ 4838, par. 113. [29] Droit de la famille - 1777, , p. 6 (C.A.); D.P. c. Librati, 2010 QCCS 2322, par. 7. [30] Languedoc c. Martin, , par. 3 (C.A.); Lacombe c. Fine, 2012 QCCS 4808, par. 37. [50] Hazan c. Fédération CJA, , par. 38 (C.S.). [52] R. c Wambolt, 2016 NBBR 15, par. 15. [54] Lahjouji c. Société de transport de Montréal, 2012 QCCS 3450, par. 110. [56] Young c. Young, (SCC), [1993] 4 RCS 3, 134; Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. c. Michalakopoulos, , par. 3 et 174(C.S.); Lavigne c. Caisse, 2019 QCCQ 4838, par. 113. [64] 7006098 Canada inc. c.

Sobeys Canada inc., 2020 QCCS 897, par. 49. [66] 2741-8854 Québec inc. c. Restaurant King Ouest inc., 2018 QCCA 1807, par. 26-29; Fédération des transporteurs par autobus c.Commission scolaire Central Québec, 2020 QCCS 828, par. 135. [67] 2741-8854 Québec inc. c. Restaurant King Ouest inc., 2018 QCCA 1807, par. 21 ; Royal Lepage commercial inc. c. 109650 CanadaLtd., 2007 QCCA 915, par. 46. [68] Syndicat des copropriétaires de Le Griffix c. Développement Griffix inc., 2020 QCCS 896, par. 74. [70] Sanscartier c. Brunelle, 2019 QCCS 5831, par. 23 ; Charland c. Lessard, 2015 QCCA 14; Lubecki c.

Lubecki, 2015 QCCA 1547,par. 32; Iris, Le groupe visuel (1990) inc. c. 9105-1862 Québec inc., 2012 QCCA 1208, par. 70-71. [93] Ratelle c. S.L., 2010 QCCA 415, par. 48. [127] Boulajfene c. Blanchette, 2019 QCCS 422, par. 15. The Court of Appeal confirms justice Ouellet’s decision but limits its

application to persons associated with defendant: Boulajfene c. Blanchette , 2020 QCCA 255 , par. 6 . [141] Boulajfene c. Blanchette , 2019 QCCS 422 , par. 15 . [160] Ciobanu c. Heusler , 2016 QCCQ 13633 , par. 17 .