2011 QCCQ 11778, 2011 QCCQ 11778

Ketterer c. Concordia University 2011 QCCQ 11778 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-125319-105 DATE: September 12, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DAVID KETTERER […] Liverpool, UK […] Plaintiff vs. CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd.

West – GM930 Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT RENDERED FROM THE BENCH ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court, ruling of its own motion under

article 54.1 C.C.P., having heard the parties on the point. [ 2 ] The essence of the dispute is the failure on the part of Concordia University to grant to the Plaintiff the title of Distinguished Professor Emeritus in 2002 and later in a subsequent re-nomination. [ 3 ] This is the latest in a series of small-claims cases in which the Plaintiff seeks to blame members of the University involved in the decision itself or in the University's treatment of his subsequent complaints about the decision. [ 4 ] In each case, the damages sought include the cost of legal advice and the cost of writing letters at $50 per letter. [ 5 ] The previous cases have been heard and decided, in files number: 500-32-114701-099 and 500-32-121407-102.

The first of those cases involved individuals connected with Concordia University and the second involved the University itself. [ 6 ] As well, the Plaintiff brought various motions in the Small Claims Division with respect to those judgments and has written letters criticizing the judgments. [ 7 ] The Court is unaware of any proceedings in Superior Court raising excess or want of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of Quebec. [ 8 ] After consideration, the Court finds the present proceedings vexations and quarrelsome for the following reasons.

I Cause of action [ 9 ] In reading the proceedings, one is hard pressed to find something that could correspond to the definition of a cause of action. The fact that someone has sought legal advice and written many letters of complaint or inquiry about the University's inner workings does not sound in any recognizable legal register.

II Repetition [ 10 ] The most recent iteration of the action has become excessive and would be prejudicial to the University and severed of its officers and employees who have been summoned as witnesses.

III Futility [ 11 ] An award of $50 per letter multiplied by 150 letters is perceived as an absurdity: the real purpose of the litigation is that it constitutes itself a nuisance to the Defendant and the individuals involved and may serve as a moral vindication of the Plaintiff but it is not attached to a real remedy that the Court could give. [ 12 ] To allow the action to continue would be an improper use of precious judicial resources; therefore the proceedings will end at this point.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DECLARES the present proceedings improper; DISMISSES the proceedings; CONDEMNS the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's judicial costs in the amount of $194; PROHIBITS the Plaintiff from bringing proceedings in the Court of Quebec except with the authorisation and subject to the conditions determined by the Chief Justice of the Court of Quebec. __________________________________ DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: September 12, 2011