2021 QCCQ 8221, 2021 QCCQ 8221

Richard A Friedman Attorneys Corporations Inc. c. Ramzi 2021 QCCQ 8221COURT OF QUEBEC CANADAPROVINCE OF QUEBECDISTRICT OF montreal Civil DivisionNo: 500-22-266929-218 DATE: August 17, 2021______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONORABLECAtherine Pilon J.C.Q.______________________________________________________________________ RICHARD A FRIEDMAN ATTORNEYS CORPRORATIONS INC.Plaintiffv.

DANIEL RAMZIDefendant______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT RENDERED ON THE BENCH______________________________________________________________________ [1] The Plaintiff has brought a claim against the Defendant for unpaid legal fees. [2] The Plaintiff attempted to serve its lawsuit against the Defendant in California by process server at his last known address. Thereport of the process server indicates that the tenant, i.e. the Defendant, has moved, as per a note on the door.

The Plaintiff then obtainedpermission from the Court to serve the Defendant at the Court office. [3] While checking something other on the Court docket, the Defendant noticed that a lawsuit had been filed against him. [4] The Defendant filed an Answer to summons containing an address which the Plaintiff believes, given the report from theprocess server, is not the Defendant’s permanent address. The Defendant also gave a phone number where the Plaintiff’s attorney allegesthat he has difficulty reaching him.

The Answer to summons also indicates a fax number, the same as the telephone number, but it isrequested to call ahead before sending a document. [5] The Plaintiff considers the Answer to summons irregular, in particular because the address would be inaccurate and that it isnot possible to communicate with the Defendant at his phone number as he does not answer or return his phone messages in a timelymanner. [6] It should be noted that the Defendant does not have an email address and refuses to get one. [7] At the beginning of the hearing, the Defendant raised that the undersigned should recuse herself by reason of a conflict of interest.This application for recusation was denied by the Court. [8] The Defendant requested that the Court postpone the Plaintiff’s application so that he could appeal the judgment on therecusation.

The Court dismissed this request based on the Court of Appeal judgment Daniel v. Mont St-Hilaire (Ville de), (2021 QCCA20 par. 24), where the Court of Appeal found that a judgment on a recusation does not suspend the proceedings at first instance,and that the trial judge may continue to hear any application presented before him or her. The Defendant is necessarily aware of thisjudgment in which he was the Appellant. [9] The Court therefore heard the Plaintiff’s allegation to strike the Answer to summons. [10] SEEING that

article 19 of the Code of civil procedure (C.C.P.) provides that parties to a case must comply with the principles,objectives and rules procedure; [11] SEEING

article 20 C.C.P. which provides an obligation for the parties to cooperate; [12] SEEING

article 23 of the C.C.P. which provides that self-represented natural persons must comply with the C.C.P.; [13] SEEING that article 147(2) C.C.P. provides that a defendant indicate proper contact information; [14] SEEING that the Defendant has not provided proper contact information in his Answer to summons and that it is unreasonableto expect the Plaintiff to call him ahead before serving him documents by telecopier, particularly since the evidence is that he fails toanswer his phone; [15] SEEING that other than through his telecopier, the Defendant does not agree to receive proceedings by recommended mail

because he does not want a delivery person present at his house in the context of the pandemic. He would agree to receive proceedings by mail, but this is not feasible since it would not allow the Plaintiff to have proof of service, and, in any event, it is uncertain that the address stated on the record is accurate; [ 16 ] SEEING that the Defendant’s behavior is uncooperative and amounts to obstruction of justice; [ 17 ] SEEING that obtaining an email address is a simple step and would facilitate service; [ 18 ] SEEING that

article 49 of the C.C.P. provides that courts have all the necessary powers to exercise their jurisdiction, including by issuing protective and safeguard orders; [ 19 ] SEEING that the Court is of the view that it would be premature at this stage to grant the Plaintiff’s Application to Strike the Answer to summons; [ 20 ] SEEING that it is in the best interest of justice that the Defendant provide an efficient means of service; FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s Application to Strike an Answer to Summons; [ 22 ] ALLOWS the Plaintiff to serve its proceedings upon the Defendant by email; [ 23 ] ORDERS the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff with a valid email address for service by August 24 th , 2021, at 5:00 PM Montreal time; [ 24 ] FAILING WHICH , the Plaintiff will be allowed to file all procedures at the Court office; [ 25 ] THE WHOLE with costs against the Defendant. ______________________________ Catherine Pilon, J.C.Q.

Me Richard Friedman BELL RUDICK & FRIEDMAN Attorneys for the Defendant Daniel Ramzi Defendant For himself Hearing date: August 17, 2021