2013 QCCQ 15599, 2013 QCCQ 15599

Marsden c. Montréal (City of) 2013 QCCQ 15599 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-124105-109 DATE: December 13, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ STEPHEN MARSDEN 912 A, 9 th Street Cold Lake, Alberta T9M 1H8 Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF MONTREAL 275 Notre-Dame Street East Montreal, Qc H2Y 1C6 and IAD HANNA, NADINE MEILLEUR and LOUIS VITARO c/o 1441 St-Urbain Street Montreal, Qc H2X 2M6 and E.

Z. c/o Casner & Edwards, LLP 303 Congress Street Boston, Massachusetts 02210 Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] GIVEN the evidence;

[ 1 ] GIVEN the evidence; [ 2 ] WHEREAS plaintiff was prosecuted for criminal harassment under

section 264 of the Criminal Code , following a complaint lodged against him by defendant E.

Z.; [ 3 ] WHEREAS plaintiff was acquitted, as complainant did not appear for the hearing ("procès-verbal", exhibit D-5); [ 4 ] WHEREAS plaintiff alleges that defendants Z., sergeant detectives Iad Hanna and Nadine Meilleur and police officer Louis Vitaro "committed malicious prosecution" against him (amended application); [ 5 ] WHEREAS , according to plaintiff, Z., Hanna, Meilleur and Vitaro, allegedly deliberately falsified evidence knowing that "there was no reasonable and probable cause" to prosecute, and allegedly altered or conspired to alter testimony; Hanna, Meilleur and Vitaro allegedly withheld evidence; Vitaro allegedly threatened him; Z. allegedly gave false testimony; and Hanna allegedly falsified his police report; [ 6 ] WHEREAS plaintiff had the burden of proof ( articles 2803 and 2804 Civil Code of Quebec ); [ 7 ] WHEREAS plaintiff had an obligation to prove fault, damages and a causal link between the two, by a preponderance of evidence [1] ; [ 8 ] WHEREAS plaintiff failed to do so; [ 9 ] WHEREAS there is not a shred of concrete evidence to justify and support plaintiff's allegations, which are merely a product of his fertile imagination; [ 10 ] WHEREAS plaintiff's testimony was tangential, circuitous and not believable; [ 11 ] WHEREAS, on the other hand, Meilleur's, Hanna's and Vitaro's testimony were highly credible and convincing, and contradicted and dispelled plaintiff's allegations; [ 12 ] WHEREAS plaintiff's allegations of, inter alia , forgery are unsubstantiated ; [ 13 ] WHEREAS the evidence, both verbal and written, clearly showed that Meilleur, Hanna and Vitaro acted in a competent, professional and courteous manner, in their handling of Z.'s complaint, in their dealings with plaintiff and throughout the investigation; [ 14 ] WHEREAS , furthermore, Meilleur, Hanna and Vitaro acted as any other normally prudent and diligent police officer/investigator would have acted under the same circumstances; [ 15 ] WHEREAS the evidence showed that, following the investigation, there was ample evidence to justify having an arrest warrant issued, and there was reasonable and probable cause to prosecute (exhibits P-1, D-1 and D-2); [ 16 ] WHEREAS, furthermore, the fact that plaintiff was acquitted, is not, in and of itself, evidence that he was prosecuted without reasonable and probable cause; [ 17 ] WHEREAS plaintiff filed complaints against Meilleur, Hanna and Vitaro, with the "Commissaire à la déontologie policière"; [ 18 ] WHEREAS plaintiff's complaints were deemed to be unfounded (exhibit D-7); [ 19 ] WHEREAS , insofar as Z. is concerned, the evidence also showed that she did not act maliciously or without reason; [ 20 ] WHEREAS plaintiff's claim is unfounded, as there is no evidence of wrongdoing on defendants' parts; WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiff's application; THE WHOLE with costs. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q.

Date of hearing: December 9, 2013