2015 QCCQ 1201, 2015 QCCQ 1201

Mazur c. Société des casinos du Québec inc. 2015 QCCQ 1201 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-135319-129 DATE: February 20, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ RICHARD MAZUR [...] Laval, Qc [...] Plaintiff v.

SOCIÉTÉ DES CASINOS DU QUÉBEC INC. 500 Sherbrooke Street West – 15th floor Montreal, Qc H3A 3G6 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] GIVEN the evidence; [ 2 ] WHEREAS, on March 5, 2010, plaintiff registered in defendant's Self-Exclusion Program for a 5 year period; [ 3 ] WHEREAS the registration form signed by plaintiff (exhibit P-1) states the following: " Self-Exclusion Program The Société des casinos du Québec inc. (the "Société") offers the self-exclusion program to any client who wishes to stop frequenting the casinos of the Société.

By registering in the self-exclusion program, the client authorises the Société to expel him/her from its casinos, including play areas, bars, snack bars, restaurants, entertainment facilities and boutiques in said casinos, during the period chosen by the client. Registration in self-exclusion program is irrevocable. The Société assumes no responsibility should the client contravene the ban to which he/she voluntarily committed. "

[ 4 ] WHEREAS , at the time of his registration, plaintiff formally refused to be put in contact with a support resource or a counsellor, despite having been given the opportunity to do so by the defendant; [ 5 ] WHEREAS , notwithstanding the above registration, plaintiff alleges that he presented himself at the Montreal Casino on numerous occasions in 2010 and 2011; [ 6 ] WHEREAS plaintiff alleges that he did so repeatedly, although he was fully cognizant of the fact that he was not being flagged and excluded by security; [ 7 ] WHEREAS plaintiff kept track of the dates on which he allegedly gambled and lost; [ 8 ] WHEREAS plaintiff is now suing defendant for "failing to respect the contract between the parties"; [ 9 ] WHEREAS plaintiff contends that defendant is responsible for his gambling and losses on said dates; [ 10 ] WHEREAS plaintiff's contentions are unreasonable; [ 11 ] WHEREAS , if plaintiff gambled on some 30 occasions after his registration in defendant's self-exclusion program, he can only blame himself; [ 12 ] WHEREAS , if plaintiff had been serious about wanting to stop gambling, he would have accepted to meet with a support resource and counsellor, as was offered to him by defendant; [ 13 ] WHEREAS , if plaintiff had been serious about his adherence to the program, he would not have gone to the casino, allegedly on some 30 occasions, "expecting to the stopped"; [ 14 ] WHEREAS defendant proved that, on the dates when plaintiff alleges he was at the casino, other registered gamblers were indeed intercepted and expelled (exhibit D -2); [ 15 ] WHEREAS it is highly unlikely that plaintiff was present on all the dates he claims he was, without ever being flagged and expelled; [ 16 ] WHEREAS, in his letter to defendant on February 13, 2011 (exhibit P-2), plaintiff wrote: "[…] I was shocked that no one at the casino asked me to leave, not even one time of the 27 times I have gone since I signed up for your so called self exclusion program.

I have kept track of the dates & times I was at the casino those 27 times & each time I was not alone, I was with someone. During these 27 times You were not supposed to allow me into the casino, I have lost a lot of money, approx. $18,000. I give you 10 days & not one day more to reimburse me my $18,000 I lost during the time period you were not supposed to allow me into the casino since your so called self exclusion program doesn't seem to exist.

If you would like the specific dates & times that you allowed me into the casino to gamble when you were not supposed to, I would be happy to provide you with them." [ 17 ] WHEREAS , in the Court's opinion, plaintiff was trying to use his registration in defendant's self-exclusion program as a way to gamble and recuperate his losses from defendant; [ 18 ] WHEREAS plaintiff's position is neither credible nor reasonable; it is untenable; [ 19 ] WHEREAS the registration form which plaintiff signed does not constitute an undertaking on defendant's part to control plaintiff's behaviour, to solve his gambling problems or to be accountable for plaintiff's future gambling losses incurred as a direct result of his own decisions and actions; [ 20 ] WHEREAS it was up to the plaintiff, and no one else, to work within the framework of defendant's program and not against it, to try to resolve his gambling issues, if in fact he ever intended to do so; [ 21 ] WHEREAS plaintiff failed in the most basic way to show, by a preponderance of evidence, that defendant committed a fault in his regard; [ 22 ] WHEREAS plaintiff not only failed to mitigate his losses, he caused them; WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiff's application, with judicial costs in the amount of $199.00.

__________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: February 16, 2015