2019 QCCQ 6375, 2019 QCCQ 6375

Muhanna c. Garda Security Group 2019 QCCQ 6375 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF montreal Civil Division No: 500-32-704394-180 DATE: September 20, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONORABLE CAtherine Pilon J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ NIVEEN MUHANNA Plaintiff v. GardA Security Group G.P.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Niveen Muhanna claims $13,000 from Garda Security Group G.P. (G arda ) following her interception by one of its security agents in a pharmacy where it was providing surveillance services. Ms. Muhanna argues that she was unjustly intercepted for potential shoplifting, and that she suffered humiliation and stress as a result. [ 2 ] Garda contests the claim on the basis that its security agent, Vincent Jolicoeur, did not commit any fault.

Question at issue • Did Mr. Jolicoeur commit a fault when he intercepted Ms. Muhanna? Context [ 3 ] The Court finds that the facts are as follows. [ 4 ] On September 21, 2017, Ms. Muhanna made some purchases at a pharmacy where Mr. Jolicoeur was on duty. When she was coming out of the pharmacy, the magnetic sensors rang. She walked back to the cash register where her purchases were checked and demagnetized. She was allowed to leave the pharmacy. [ 5 ] As she walked out, the sensors rang again but she ignored them and continued walking to her car. [ 6 ] Mr. Jolicoeur heard the ringing and walked to Ms.

Muhanna to ask her to come back to have her bags checked. Ms. Muhanna started video taping from that point with her cell phone. [ 7 ] Mr. Jolicoeur’s intention was to have her bags checked again at the cash register, but no cashier was present. [ 8 ] Following the pharmacy’s procedure in this kind of situation, Mr. Jolicoeur took Ms. Muhanna to the employee room in the back of the pharmacy where some employees were on break. [ 9 ] Mr. Jolicoeur called the store manager who eventually asked him to leave the employee room as he dealt with Ms. Muhanna himself. [ 10 ] Ms.

Muhanna eventually emptied her bags which did not contain any stolen items and she was authorized to leave. Analysis [ 11 ] The Court has to determine whether Mr. Jolicoeur committed a fault which can engage the liability of Garda, his employer. The Court has to evaluate whether his conduct was reasonable and prudent and diligent in comparison with any other security agent placed in the same circumstances. This criterion must also be considered in the context where it is legitimate for a merchant to protect its

merchandise against shoplifting if it has a reasonable ground to believe a theft may have occurred, as long as it acts as courteously as possible. [1] [ 12 ] Whether the theft occurred or not is not material to determine if a fault was committed by the security agent. The question is rather whether there were reasonable grounds to suspect that there may have been a theft, and that the agent acted pursuant to this suspicion with a proper standard of care. [ 13 ] Garda provides its security agents with a book of procedures when they suspect a theft in a store. Mr.

Jolicoeur did not follow the procedure in every detail, but that in itself does constitute a civil fault. [ 14 ] Given that the magnetic sensors rang when Ms. Muhanna walked out of the pharmacy, Mr. Jolicoeur was justified in asking her to reenter the store to check her bags. [ 15 ] The video recording shows that the minute Mr. Jolicoeur asked her to follow him back into the store, Ms. Muhanna became extremely aggressive which made the process difficult. [ 16 ] As they were walking to the employee room, she gratuitously called Mr. Jolicoeur racist and threatened to have him fired. [ 17 ] Ms. Muhanna blames Mr.

Jolicoeur for having been impolite, which is not evidenced by the video footage. He became aggravated as the events unfolded given Ms. Muhanna’s aggressiveness, but he was not impolite or abusive to her. [ 18 ] Ms. Muhanna testified what she was humiliated by having to go to the employee room. However, the whole process would not have been necessary had she been more cooperative. [ 19 ] Security agents are not bound by a duty of perfection. Mr Jolicoeur’s intervention, both when he intercepted Ms.

Muhanna and in the following moments when they entered the pharmacy and the employee room, may not have been perfect, but it was not unreasonable and does not constitute a fault for which Garda can be held liable. [ 20 ] In addition, there is no evidence to lead the Court to believe that Mr. Jolicoeur acted on the basis of a racial bias. This is rather an assumption by Ms. Muhanna because she wears a headscarf.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant; CONDEMNS the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant the Court costs of $302. __________________________________ CATHERINE PILON, j.c.q. Date of hearing: September 16, 2019