2022 QCCQ 2536, 2022 QCCQ 2536

Clark c. Gatien 2022 QCCQ 2536 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF IBERVILLE TOWN OF SAINT-JEAN-SUR RICHELIEU Civil Division Nos: 505-32-703154-196; 505-32-703184-193; 755-32-700923-198; 505-32-037881-191; 505-32-037882-199 DATE: May 12, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUC HERVÉ THIBAUDEAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ 505-32-703154-196 ANTHONY CLARK Plaintiff v. MONIKA GATIEN Defendant And: 505-32-703184-193 ANTHONY CLARK Plaintiff v.

SIAVASH DAGHIGHI SADAGH Defendant And: 755-32-700923-198 ANTHONY CLARK Plaintiff v. CORPS CANADIEN DES COMMISSIONNAIRES Defendant And: 505-32-037881-191 ANTHONY CLARK Plaintiff v. NANCY MÉNARD DIANE MÉNARD Defendants And: 505-32-037882-199 ANTHONY CLARK Plaintiff v. DIANE MÉNARD FRANÇOIS GIROUX Defendants

______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ I- OVERVIEW [ 1 ] In a judgment dated June 18 th , 2020, the Court consolidates five applications filed by Mr. Anthony Clark [1] ( the Consolidating Judgment ). The present judgment decides of these five applications, which all allude to the same factual situation. In each application, Mr. Clark claims $15,000.00. [ 2 ] M. Clark alleges that Mrs. Monika Gatien [2] and Mr.

Siavash Daghighi [3] file an abusive criminal complaint against him following a dispute he has with Mr. Daghighi on April 3, 2018 at the Lacolle border office. In their complaint, Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi pretend that during the dispute, Mr. Clark verbalises death threats towards Mr. Daghighi. [ 3 ] Mr. Clark argues that the accusations brought against him are abusive since he is acquitted on January 10, 2019. He pretends that Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi perjure themselves in their declarations and before the Court. He affirms that the whole incident makes him lose his employment at Les Autobus E.

Ménard & Fils inc. ( Autobus Ménard ), a company managed by Mrs. Nancy Ménard [4] and Mrs. Diane Ménard [5] . II- ISSUES IN DISPUTE [ 4 ] The following questions have to be answered : [ 5 ] By his applications, is Mr. Clark dividing a claim? [ 6 ] Is the complaint brought by Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi abusive? [ 7 ] Has Mr. Clark been wrongfully dismissed? If yes, is there a motive to lift the corporate veil between Autobus Ménard and Mrs. Nancy Ménard? [ 8 ] Has Mr. François Giroux [6] caused damages to Mr. Clark? [ 9 ] The Court concludes that by three of the five applications, Mr.

Clark is dividing a claim, which is prohibited by

article 538 of the Code of civil procedure [7] ( C.C.P. ). In addition, Mr. Clark does not demonstrate that Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi are faulty by filing their complaint. Finally, Mr. Clark does not demonstrate that he is wrongfully dismissed by Mrs. Nancy Ménard, that there is a motive to lift the corporate veil or that Mr. François Giroux is faulty towards him and causes him a prejudice. [ 10 ] Here is why. III- CONTEXT [ 11 ] Starting September 14, 2017, Mr. Clark works as a bus driver for Autobus Ménard. He is trained by Mr. François Giroux. Mr.

Clark’s work is to transport refugees at the Lacolle border office. He works night shifts. [ 12 ] Mr. Daghighi is a security guard employed by Corps Canadien des Commissionnaires (the Commissionnaires ) [8] , also working at the Lacolle border office. Commissionaires is retained by the Canadian Border Services Agency ( CBSA ) to supervise the arrival and the movements of the refugees as they enter Canada by Chemin Roxham in Lacolle. [ 13 ] Autobus Ménard also has a contract with CBSA, to transport the refugees. [ 14 ] Relations between Mr. Clark and Mr. Daghighi are not good, to say the least. Mr.

Clark pretends that Mr. Daghighi is condescending with him, acting as if he is his superior, constantly telling him what to do, giving him directives on the transport of refugees. [ 15 ] Mr. Daghighi denies these allegations. He affirms that between September 14, 2017 and April 3rd, 2018, he speaks to Mr. Clark only a handful of times. Mr. Daghighi however confirms that Mr. Clark is highly reluctant to take directives from him. [ 16 ] Mr. Clark pretends that he does not have any orders to receive from M. Daghighi. [ 17 ] On April 2 nd , 2018, Mr.

Clark complains to the CBSA superintendent because the Commissionnaires’ security guards are not helping the refugees carry their luggage. [ 18 ] On April 3, 2018, just before Mr. Clark completes his shift, a dispute arises between Mr. Clark and Mr. Daghighi in the CBSA parking, in relation to directives and proceedings with the refugees, namely the luggage issue. Mr. Daghighi informs Mr. Clark that he does not have to complaint to the CBSA and that he can address his comments on the luggage issue directly to him. Mr.

Clark answers that he does not have to speak to him, insisting that he does not take orders from security guards. The tone gets louder. Mr. Clark pretends that Mr. Daghighi verbalises a racial comment towards him. Mr. Clark walks in the CBSA office to form a complaint against Mr. Daghighi.

[ 19 ] Since the CBSA agent [9] is busy, Mr. Clark comes back in the parking lot. Mr. Daghighi is still there. The dispute continues. M. Clark alleges that during the dispute, as he is pointing his finger towards him, Mr. Daghighi moves his arm away and hits him in the face. [ 20 ] Mr. Daghighi pretends that he does not verbalise any racial comment towards Mr. Clark. He admits that he tells him “ that’s the problem with you ”, referring to his reluctance to follow directives and his lack of emotional control. He denies adding any comment on his race. He adds that when Mr.

Clark comes out of the CBSA office, he is very aggressive, pointing the finger at him, very close to his eye. Fearing to be harmed, he moves his hand away. He does not push him or hit him. [ 21 ] Mrs. Gatien, who also works as a security guard for Commissionnaires, is present. She can observe Mr. Clark and Mr. Daghighi arguing in front of the CBSA offices. She affirms that she hears Mr. Clark telling Mr. Daghighi numerous times that he does not have to answer to him and to stay away from him [10] . Since Mr.

Clark’s tone is loud and aggressive, a CBSA agent [11] tells him to calm down and to leave the site. [ 22 ] Mr. Clark walks away from Mr. Daghighi but keeps on blaming him. Mr. Daghighi cannot hear everything Mr. Clark says but he can hear him pronouncing the word “kill”. [ 23 ] Mrs. Gatien confirms at the hearing that Mr. Clark insults Mr. Daghighi, adding “I will kill you”. After apologizing to Mrs. Gatien, Mr. Clark leaves the site and goes home. [ 24 ] Once Mr. Clark is gone, Mr. Daghighi discusses the situation with CBSA officers. They decide to contact the police to file a complaint against Mr.

Clark in relation to the treaths he verbalised. Officer Cinthia Bellemare of the Sûreté du Québec meets Mr. Daghighi and Mrs. Gatien on site at the Lacolle border. She takes their declarations [12] . [ 25 ] The same day, Mr. Clark receives a call from her superior Mrs. Nancy Ménard, requesting a meeting with him. They meet on April 4 th at Autobus Ménard’s offices in Noyan. Mrs. Ménard asks Mr. Clark to contact the Police because there is a complaint brought against him. She also gives him a letter informing him that he is suspended because of an ongoing investigation on the incident with Mr. Daghighi [13] .

Finally, she informs him that a CBSA employee contacted her and informed her that he cannot work at the Lacolle location any more [14] . [ 26 ] Mr. Clark contacts the Police forces and arranges a meeting at the Police station. He meets Officer Stephen Bertrand on April 5 th . He learns that he is being accused of verbalising death threats towards Mr. Daghighi. After completing a declaration with Officers Bellemare and Bertrand, he is released with a promise to appear. [ 27 ] On May 14 th , 2018, Mr. Clark files a complaint for assault against Mr. Daghighi, before Officers Bellemare [15] and Bertrand [16] .

On May 20 th , Officer Bellemare prepares the paperwork asking the Director of Penal and Criminal Prosecution ( DPCP ) to file accusations against Mr. Daghighi. The DPCP does not follow up on that requests and does not press charges. [ 28 ] On January 10, 2019, Mr. Clark appears before Mr. Justice Éric Simard J.C.Q. to undergo his trial in relation to the threats formulated towards Mr. Daghighi. After Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi testify, Justice Simard agrees to a suggestion from the DPCP attorney and acquits Mr. Clark. [ 29 ] Following his acquittal, Mr. Clark files another complaint against Mrs. Gatien and Mr.

Daghighi, alleging that they perjured themselves before Mr. Justice Simard. Sergeant Dominique Robert is in charge of the investigation. [ 30 ] After completing his investigation, Sergeant Robert submits his file to the DPCP lawyers, who decide not to press charges. [ 31 ] In his applications against Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi, Mr. Clark alleges that they commit perjury before the Court on January 10, 2019, the day he is acquitted. In each of these applications, paragraph 1 is identical: 1. La

partie demanderesse poursuit la

partie défenderesse pour les raisons suivantes : Le 3 avril 2018, la

partie défenderesse a fait de fausses affirmations au soutien d’une plainte criminelle portée contre la

partie demanderesse. Le 10 janvier 2019, la

partie demanderesse a été acquittée par le juge Éric Simard de la Cour du Québec, chambre criminelle, des chefs d’accusation qui pesaient contre elle, en raison, notamment, de la fausse déclaration de la

partie défenderesse. Lors de l’audition de la

partie demanderesse en Cour criminelle, il a été démontré que les faits que la

partie défenderesse a rapporté au soutien de sa plainte étaient mensongers. En raison de ces accusations criminelles, la

partie demanderesse a été suspendue de son emploi et a perdu un an de salaire, en plus des dommages psychologiques que cette situation lui a causé . ( Sic ) [ 32 ] On December 12, 2019, Mr. Clark files an application against Commissionaires (the Commissionaires Application ). It refers to a letter which states: 1. La

partie demanderesse poursuit la

partie défenderesse pour les raisons suivantes : La

partie demanderesse a été accusée sous de fausses affirmations de la part de la

partie défenderesse. La

partie défenderesse a fait de fausses affirmations selon l’ art. 1457 et 1463 C.c.Q. La

partie demanderesse a démontré, lors de l’audition que ces affirmations étaient fausses selon l’art. 139 par. 2 du code criminel. La

partie demanderesse a été acquittée. La

partie demanderesse a perdu son emploi et a perdu 1 an de salaire en plus des dommages psychologiques subis (30 000,00 $). La

partie défenderesse a la responsabilité civile de ses employés (Monika Gatien et Siavash Daghighi Sadagh) selon la loi 88. 2. Les faits se sont produits le ou vers le 3 avril 2018, à Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle (Québec). [ 33 ] On December 19, 2019, Mr. Clark files two more applications against Mrs. Nancy Ménard and Diane Ménard [17] , and against Diane Ménard and François Giroux [18] ( respectively, the Ménard Applications #1 and #2 ).

[ 34 ] In the Ménard Application #1, the application states : 1. La

partie demanderesse poursuit la

partie défenderesse – (vice president autobus Ménard)- pour les raisons suivants; pour congédie le 4 avril 2018 donc le demandeur est faites au sujet de la demanderesse lui ayant causé une perte de salaire contrat de 4 années au douane, soit 120,000 , en plus de dommages psychologiques traumatic, detrute son dossier professionnelle parfait et discrimination , selon la charte federal et quebecois et toute les autre lois ici a canada! ( Sic ) 2. les faits se sont produits le 3 avril 2018 au douane – st-bernard -, n’oubliez pas le demandeur est 100 acquitte par juge eric simard au palais du justice st-jean, qc, le 10 jan 2019, en plus le juge comprendre pas pourquoi – les policiers a arretez le demandeur et le juge est fauchee avec le procureur et policier sq et les agents au douane. [ 35 ] The Ménard Application #2 also alleges the Lacolle incident: Je suis congedie sans justifie le 4 avril 2018 – donc le demandeur est faites au sujet de la demanderesse lui ayant cause une perte de salaire contrat de 4 annee au douane – soit 120,000 , en plus de dommages traumatic, detruite son dossier professionnele parfait et discrimination […]( Sic ) (all underlinings in the previous excerpts are added) [ 36 ] On June 18, 2020, the same day the Consolidating Judgment is rendered, Mr.

Clark is declared querulous by this Court [19] . IV- ANALYSIS A- RULES OF EVIDENCE – THE BURDEN OF PROOF [ 37 ] To succeed, Mr. Clark must prove the facts on which his applications are based, by preponderance of proof, as per articles 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Quebec [20] ( C.C.Q. ). Without reaching certainty [21] , Mr. Clark must adduce convincing evidence [22] . The proof which renders a fact more probable than inexistent is sufficient [23] . However, a possibility that a fact may have happened, a hypothesis, is not enough [24] . The Court does not weigh possibilities.

Probable facts are those which bear a degree of probability of at least 50 % [25] . To obtain the dismissal of Mr. Clark’s application, the defendants must demonstrate, again by preponderant proof, that the rights alleged by Mr. Clark do not exist. However, if Mr. Clark does not meet his own burden, his applications are dismissed and defendants do not have anything to demonstrate. A party fails to discharge its burden of proof if, to the Court’s opinion, two contradictory versions of the facts equal each other, without one being more probative that the other [26] .

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 [27] . The applicant who does not satisfy his or her burden sees his or her demand dismissed. B- DIVISION OF CLAIMS [ 38 ] The first paragraph of

article 538 C.C.P. states: 538. A plaintiff may voluntarily reduce the amo unt claimed to $15,000 or less, but cannot divide a claim exceeding that amount into two or more claims not exceeding that amount , under pain of dismissal of the application. (underlining added) [ 39 ] Generally speaking, there is a division of claim when several recourses involve the same parties, the same facts and the same legal basis and that the total amount of the claims is greater than the maximum allowed before the Small Claims division [28] .

However, i t is not essential that all claims be between the same parties to conclude in a division of claims. If there are several defendants who can be held responsible of a damage caused by common faults, solidarily or jointly, a plaintiff cannot file, before the small claims division, as many claims as there are defendants. He is entitled only to one claim against all persons responsible [29] . Similarly, if it Is possible to treat “as a whole” the various elements which contribute to the same prejudice alleged in various applications, there may be a division of claim prohibited by

article 538 C.C.P. [30] [ 40 ] As a matter of principle, if there is division of claim, no right of action exists for Plaintiff.

Article 538 C.C.P. is of public order. It cannot be set aside by the judge or by the parties. In Olymbec , Mr. Justice Alain Trudel J.C.Q. states that the consequence of a division of claim is the dismissal of all demands, since no right of action exists [31] . In Nuckle , Justice Pierre Allen dismisses both claims [32] . C- THE ALLEGATIONS OF FAULTY CONDUCTS [ 41 ] Mr. Clark’s applications are generally founded on

article 1457 C.c.Q. , which states the general principles of civil liability: 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. [ 42 ] This regime of liability rests on the concept of faulty conduct [33] . Every person has a duty to behave so as not to cause injury to

another. However, to constitute a fault, a breach of this duty must amount to a conduct that a reasonable person would not have in the same circumstances [34] . [ 43 ] It is therefore not enough to tie a damage to a reproached behavior. One must demonstrate that such behavior does not respect the standards of conduct generally accepted in our society [35] . It is only the person who, by his or her conduct, transgresses the model that society expects from him or her that is faulty [36] . [ 44 ] In addition to a faulty conduct, Mr. Clark must also demonstrate a damage resulting therefrom.

A person can commit a fault but incur no liability if his or her conduct does not cause damage to another [37] . Finally, Mr. Clark must demonstrate a direct causal link between the fault and the damage [38] . This demonstration is essential [39] . Only then is he entitled to compensation [40] . [ 45 ] The Court now applies these principles to decide on the liability of each defendant. V- APPLICATION A- THE GATIEN AND DAGHIGHI APPLICATIONS [ 46 ] In all five applications, Mr. Clark alleges that he lost his employment at Autobus Ménard.

Paragraph 4 of his applications in the Gatien and the Daghighi claims are identical. They read as follows: 4. Le montant total de la réclamation de la

partie demanderesse se détaille comme suit : 15 000 $ à

titre de perte salariales et de dommages pour les préjudices et inconvénients que les fausses déclarations de la

partie défenderesse lui ont causés. [ 47 ] The evidence heard at trial convinces the Court that the faulty conduct Mr. Clark blames on Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi is the same: bringing false accusations against him, leading to his loss of employment. Even if Mr. Clark pretends that his claim against Mr. Daghighi is different, he does not succeed to demonstrate it by way of a preponderant evidence. Mr. Clark’s pretention that Mr. Daghighi has been harassing him since September 2017 is denied.

Even if they had their disagreements in the past, the Court cannot conclude these can contribute to the damage alleged by Mr. Clark, which is his loss of employment. Mr. Clark does not demonstrate being harassed by M. Daghighi. [ 48 ] It follows that both the Gatien and the Daghighi applications stem out of the same factual situation and are alleging the same delict and the same damage. The original claim is of the same nature in each: one year of salary, as alleged in paragraph 1 of the applications, quoted hereinabove (par. [31]). The damage claimed in each proceeding appears to be half of the alleged loss.

This indicates that there is a division of claim. If there is only one claim that surpasses 15 000 $ in value and that an applicant divides it amongst several debtors, in several applications, there is a prohibited division of claim [41] . In that case, all claims should fail. [ 49 ] The Court concludes that by the Gatien and the Daghighi applications, Mr. Clark is dividing his claim based on an abusive criminal complaint, by claiming, in each application, the maximum amount he is entitled to claim before the small Claims division.

Thus both claims should be dismissed. [ 50 ] Even if this is not the case, there is no evidence that Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi commit a civil fault towards Mr. Clark. The only fact that Mr. Clark is acquitted is not sufficient to conclude in Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi’s liability.

The case law clearly establishes that a simple denunciation to the police forces does not trigger the personal liability of the complainant [42] . [ 51 ] The general rule is that every citizen has the right, and sometimes the duty, to instigate criminal proceedings against another person if he has reasonable and probable grounds for believing that a crime has been committed. It is important for a good administration of justice that he be free to do so without fear of any consequences.

A complainant only incurs liability if the prosecution fails and if it is demonstrated that he acts without reasonable and probable grounds or for improper motives [43] . [ 52 ] For damages to be awarded, one must demonstrate that the criminal complaint is brought by gross negligence, with a malicious intent or without reasonable grounds. Abuse, bad faith or temerity must be proven [44] . This will happen if there is no justification for the complaint or if there is an intent to harm the accused person [45] . Even when a complaint is precarious, its filing, as itself, does not justify an action in damages [46] .

One must also not forget that good faith is presumed, as per

article 2805 C.C.Q. It is Mr. Clark’s burden to rebut that presumption. Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi are entitled to benefit of the presumption of good faith stated in

article 2805 C.C.Q.: 2805. Good faith is always presumed, unless the law expressly requires that it be proved. [ 53 ] In the present case, there is no evidence that Mrs. Gatien or Mr. Daghighi have a spirit of revenge or a malicious intent towards Mr. Clark. They do not act impulsively and they are not looking for a personal gain [47] . They discuss the matter with CBSA officers before contacting the police. Mrs. Gatien hears Mr. Clark verbalising the threats and she does not have any motive to harm him. She just wants this to be known by Mr. Daghighi. In each of the declarations they make (to the police, to Mr.

Justice Simard and before the undersigned), they describe in a substantially similar manner the principal factual elements that lead to their belief that Mr. Clark verbalises the illegal threats. [ 54 ] To adhere to Mr. Clark’s version, the Court must completely discard Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi’s testimonies, for lack of credibility [48] . There is no reason to do so. Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi render frank and credible testimonies. They answer the questions without hesitation [49] and they never attempt to allude them. They seem sincere and credible [50] .

It is true that there is a slight discrepancy in their respective versions. It concerns the distance between Mr. Clark and Mrs. Gatien when the threats are verbalised. This discrepancy on a secondary fact does not justify a finding of bad faith or of malicious intent. In addition, the transcripts of the hearing before Mr. Justice Simard do not even reveal that Mr. Clark is acquitted for that reason. On the contrary, Justice Simard does not issue any written or oral motives. He only agrees to the lawyers’ suggestion [51] .

[ 55 ] The Court concludes that Mr. Clark does not satisfy his burden to demonstrate by preponderant evidence that Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi commit a fault by bringing their complaint to the police officers. The Daghighi and the Gatien Applications are dismissed, for two motives. First there is a division of claims and second, the claims are not founded. B- THE COMMISSIONNAIRES APPLICATION [ 56 ] This conclusion also settles the issue of Commissionnaires’ liability for the acts of their employees. Since Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi are not faulty, the Court cannot retain any liability on Commissionnaires’ part.

Article 1463 C.C.Q. implies a finding of liability of the subordinate in order to allow a condemnation of the principal. [ 57 ] The Court notes, however, that in the Commissionnaires application, the alleged damage is 30 000 $. This confirms that in the Gatien and the Daghighi applications, Mr. Clark divided by two his loss of salary valued at 30 000 $. [ 58 ] Also, Mr. Clark cannot institute a separate application to claim from Commissionnaires additional damages allegedly resulting from its subordinates’ acts.

Article 1463 C.c.Q. states that “[t] he principal is bound to make reparation for the injury caused by the fault of his subordinate ”. The damage has therefore to be the same. [ 59 ] Allowing an applicant to file a second application against a principal for the injury caused by the fault of his subordinate creates a risk of overcompensating. The case law acknowledges that the liability of the principal for his subordinate’s acts is solidary with the subordinate [52] . This confirms that the damage has to be the same one. Again, this leads the Court to conclude that Mr.

Clark is dividing a claim by instituting in three separate Court files the Daghighi, the Gatien and the Commissionnaires Applications. [ 60 ] The Commissionaires Application is therefore dismissed for two motives. First the claim is not founded because Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi are not faulty and secondly because there is a division of claim. C- THE MÉNARD APPLICATIONS [ 61 ] During the hearing, Mr. Clark desists himself of his application against Mrs. Diane Ménard. Mrs. Nancy Ménard becomes the only defendant in the Ménard Application #1 and Mr.

François Giroux becomes the only Defendant in the Ménard Application #2. [ 62 ] In both applications, Mr. Clark alleges that he was wrongfully dismissed on April 4 th , 2018 and that he sustained a loss of revenue equivalent to four years of wages, e.g. 120 000 $ (see par. [34]). This is the same damage in both applications, for the same alleged breach of conduct. Thus there could be a division of claims. [ 63 ] However, the Court notes that the claims in the Ménard Applications do not arise from the same cause of action than the Daghighi, the Gatien and the Commissionnaires Applications.

The source of the recourse is different [53] . This makes it a separate claim. [ 64 ] Even if there is no division of claim, the application against Mrs. Nancy Ménard must fail. Mr. Clark’s employer is not Mrs. Ménard, but rather Autobus Ménard, a distinct legal person. Mrs. Ménard is an officer and an indirect shareholder of Autobus Ménard. Articles 309 and 317 C.C.Q. state: 309. Legal persons are distinct from their members. Their acts bind none but themselves, except as provided by law. 317.

The juridical personality of a legal person may not be invoked against a person in good faith so as to dissemble fraud, abuse of right or contravention of a rule of public order. [ 65 ] A legal person benefits of a legal personality which is distinct of its member’s. Without a personal fault of the officer, no liability lies [54] . The acts of the legal person in its own interests do not bind its members [55] .

The administrator, the officer, the shareholder or the representative of a legal person may invoke the distinct legal personality and the immunity resulting therefrom to escape personal liability for the company’s faults. [ 66 ] In order to obtain a condemnation against an officer or a shareholder of a legal person, one of the following conditions must be met :

a) That person commits a fault triggering his or her personal liability (

article 1457 C.C.Q.); or

b) She or he uses the company as a shield to hide a fraud, an abuse of right or a contravention to a rule of public order, in which case

article 1457 C.C.Q. allows the lift of the corporate veil [56] . [ 67 ] Mr. Clark does not demonstrate that the conditions are met to conclude in Mrs. Nancy Ménard’s personal liability. When Mrs. Ménard meets Mr. Clark on April 4 th , 2018, she informs him that his conduct is under investigation. She hands him his letter of suspension. This is the last time she speaks with him. Autobus Ménard never terminates Mr. Clark. No fault lies in its conduct. Mr. Clark never requests to be reinstated in his employment after his acquittal. [ 68 ] Not long after April 4 th , 2018, Mrs.

Ménard receives a call from the Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité au travail (CNESST), asking to send M. Clark’s statement of employment. She abides by that request and sends the statement [57] . She then receives a letter from the CNESST containing a complaint for psychological harassment formulated by Mr. Clark. This complaint is dismissed on January 22 nd 2020 by arbitrator Esther Plante of the Tribunal administratif du travail [58] . [ 69 ] Mr. Clark does not demonstrate that Mrs.

Nancy Ménard used Autobus Ménard as a shield to hide a fraud, an abuse of rights or a contravention of a rule of public order. Mrs. Ménard never adopts a faulty conduct towards Mr. Clark. Suspending him in reason of the complaint is not a deviation from the acts of a diligent and reasonable person. Mrs. Ménard must benefit of the presumption of good faith

stated in

article 2805 C.C.Q. [ 70 ] In addition, Mr. Clark does not demonstrate that Mrs. Nancy Ménard acts negligently or recklessly. There is no proof that a reasonable person would act differently under similar circumstances. Mr. Clark’s application against Mrs. Nancy Ménard must therefore be dismissed. [ 71 ] As for the application against Mr. François Giroux, Mr. Clark pretends that Mr. Giroux has access to personal information on him, his date of birth, his social insurance number and his phone number. This causes him prejudice. Even though Mr. Giroux does not file any contestation, Mr.

Clark must still demonstrate that his claim against him has merits. He must prove a faulty conduct, a damage and a link between the two. [ 72 ] Mr. Giroux works for Autobus Menard on a part time basis, as a contractual. When Mr. Clark is hired by Autobus Ménard, Mr. Giroux trains him, for about a week. He shows him the routes and the operations at the Lacolle location. [ 73 ] Mr. Clark alleges that in October 2017, as he arrives to the Lacolle Border Office, he sees a Garda security guard that is allegedly asleep. He wakes him up and takes his name. The next day Mr. Giroux calls him, requesting a meeting.

They meet for a coffee. According to Mr. Clark, Mr. Giroux tells him that Autobus Ménard received a call from the Garda security agency, stating Garda received a report that a security guard was sleeping. Mr. Giroux tells him that this can hurt the contract between CBSA and Autobus Ménard. Mr. Clark is convened to a meeting at Autobus Ménard’s offices, where he then meets Mrs. Diane Ménard and Mr. Giroux. He states that Mrs. Diane Ménard informs him that he is suspended for a period of two days. Mr. Clark denies filing a report against the security guard.

He files a complaint before the Tribunal administratif du Travail [59] . [ 74 ] The administrative judge Esther Plante dismisses Mr. Clark’s complaint. She writes in her decision that Mr. Clark affirmed that he was suspended for one week in reason of this incident and that Mrs. Diane Ménard and Mrs. Nancy Ménard denied that Mr. Clark was suspended at all [60] . [ 75 ] Mr. Clark submits that Mr. Giroux contacts him by phone. He is therefore provided with personal information concerning him and that this causes him a prejudice. The simple fact that he has his phone number is, according to Mr.

Clark, a faulty conduct. The Court does not see things that way. Mr. Giroux acted as a messenger to convoke Mr. Clark to a meeting. The Court takes for granted he is being asked to so. This is nothing out of the ordinary. By contacting Mr. Clark and asking him to attend a meeting with Autobus Ménard, Mr. Giroux does not deviate from the conduct a reasonable and diligent person would have. In addition, there is no causal link between Mr. Giroux’ acts the alleged damages, which is his termination eight months later. Mr. Clark does not meet his burden. [ 76 ] Mr. Clark’s application against Mr.

Giroux must therefore be dismissed. There is no fault and there is no causal link with the damages alleged. VI- CONCLUSIONS [ 77 ] All applications filed by Mr. Clark are dismissed. [ 78 ]

Article 340 C.C.P. states : 340. Legal costs are owed to the party that was successful, unless the court decides otherwise. [ 79 ] There is a reason to decide otherwise. After the hearing of February 1 st and 2 nd , 2022, Mr. Clark writes to the undersigned judge six times. In each letter, Mr. Clark reiterates the same allegations of criminal conduct by Mrs. Gatien and Mr. Daghighi. He accuses them of perjuring themselves before the undersigned judge and he accuses them of racism.

In his April 8 th letter, he writes: DONC, FAUSSE TÉMOIGNAGE PAR MONIKA (VOIR ENCORE 139, 131, 140 DE LA CODE CRIMINEL) – MONIKA – TÉMOIN DE SA TÊTE UNINTELLECTUAL ET RACIST COMME MR. DAGHIGHI- EST PAS LE VRAI ENVENMENTS CETTE JOURNÉE 3 AVRIL 2018 ET 2019 JAN 10, N’OUBLIEZ PAS MR DAGHIGHI VIENT DE LA PAYS TERRORIST – IRAN – UNE PAYS RACIST CONTRE TOUS LES BLANCS ET NOIRS – SELON LUI ET LE GOVERNMENT !!!!!!! (Sic) [ 80 ] Mr. Clark further states in his letters that if judgment is not rendered in his favor, the undersigned judge must recuse himself.

He writes in February 3 rd letter : N’OUBLIEZ PAS LE COUR SUPREME A DIT- : “WHEN OR EVEN THE APPEARENCE OF IMPROPRIÉTÉ EXIST WHEN YOU HAVE A FRENCH RACIST JUDGE THAT HAS ALREADY RULED IN FAVOUR OF WHITE FRENCH RACIST defendants – WHO ALL LIED IN COURT before: AND-OR:”VIOLATED THE LEGAL CHARTER RIGHTS OF A BLACK ACCUSED OR VICTIM:” – you need to recuse yourself judge Thibaudeau!!!!! (Sic) [ 81 ] The Court concludes, sadly, that Mr. Clark’s crusade may not be over, even though he is already declared querulous. This is why the Court does not condemn him to pay defendants’ legal costs.

These files have already consumed too many judiciary resources and it would not be logical to allow the disputes to continue over a bill of costs. BY THESE MOTIVES, THE COURT: [ 82 ] DISMISSES the application filed by Plaintiff Anthony Clark in the file of Anthony Clark v. Monika Gatien , 505-32-703154- 196; [ 83 ] DISMISSES the application filed by Plaintiff Anthony Clark in the file of Anthony Clark v. Aka Siavash Daghighi Sadagh , 505-32-703184-193;

[84] DISMISSES the application filed by Plaintiff Anthony Clark in the file of Anthony Clark v. Corps Canadien desCommissionnaires du Québec, 755-32-700923-198; [85] DISMISSES the application filed by Plaintiff Anthony Clark in the file of Anthony Clark v. Diane Ménard & Nancy Ménard,505-32-037881-191; [86] DISMISSES the application filed by Plaintiff Anthony Clark in the file of Anthony Clark v.

Diane Ménard & François Giroux,505-32-037882-199; [87] EACH PARTY PAYING ITS OWN LEGAL COSTS. __________________________________ LUC HERVÉ THIBAUDEAU, J.C.Q.Dates of hearing : February 1st & 2nd, 2022 [9] On December 20, 2019, Mr. Clark filed an application against the agent, Mrs. Alice Kula, before the Small Claims Division sitting inSt-Jean, District of St-François, in file no. 755-32-700921-192. This application is dismissed by the Consolidating Judgment, for lack ofjurisdiction of this Court, in virtue of

article 21 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50. [26] Lezoka c. Bonenfant, 2021 QCCS 893, par. 57. [29] Abedini c. Commission scolaire Marie-Victorin, 2019 QCCQ 8903, par. 12; Tirone c. Arcand, 2016 QCCQ 8885, par. 24-25; Cheryc. Ly, 2015 QCCQ 422, par. 51-54; Gingras c. Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis, , par. 5 (C.Q.). [32] Nuckle c. Morin, 2018 QCCQ 6290, par 28. See also : Daviau c. Charbonneau, 2020 QCCQ 30, par 19; Abedini c. Commissionscolaire Marie-Victorin, 2019 QCCQ 8903, par. 15-16 ; 9046-4744 Québec inc. (Maison Barakett) c. Olymbec Société immobilière, 2016QCCQ 9329, par. 9; Tirone c.

Arcand, 2016 QCCQ 8885, par. 26. [50] Eustache c. La Compagnie d’assurance Bélair inc., (QCCQ) par. 40-41. See also : Desrosiers c. Gaudreau, 2017QCCQ 16681, par. 60.