2019 QCCQ 1817, 2019 QCCQ 1817

Dorion c. McGill University 2019 QCCQ 1817 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-156936-173 DATE: February 25, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IAN EDWARD DORION Plaintiff v.

MCGILL UNIVERSITY And CHRISTOPHER MARTIN BUDDLE And EDITH BREINER And GLENN ZABOWSKI And LINE THIBAULT And VICTORIA PERCIVAL HILTON And ISMAIL LAHTAIAL And ANTONINA PALIOTTI And RUBEN TADEIA And ELIO TADDEO And GUILLERMINA ROBLES FLORES And DIMITRIOS PETROPOULOS And DAVE CLARK And MUGISHA MUBARRAKA And MATTHEW KOGAN And MATTHEW VAIROGS And ALEXANDRA GREGORIAN And MELANIE OUELLETTE And KELLY PIERRE PAUL And JEREMME DOUCETTE Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Ian Dorion claims $15,000 in damages from McGill University (“ McGill ”) and 20 other Defendants.

He alleges that McGill and a number of the defendants who are also McGill employees breached an undertaking to provide him with and pay for off-campus accommodation for the months of March and April 2017, which caused him to incur a loss of $2,200.

[ 2 ] He further alleges that McGill and some of its employees caused him further legal problems and prevented him from retrieving his belongings and writing exams at the school, for which he claims $2,800. [ 3 ] Finally, Mr. Dorion alleges that another group of Defendants working within the cleaning and security departments of the school harassed him and lodged false accusations against him with the Montreal Police Department, which caused him to suffer prejudice in that he was denied access to the campus, could not recover his belongings or write his exams at McGill. [ 4 ] The Defendants have filed a joint Contestation and argue that (

i) as to the claim for breaching the undertaking to pay for accommodation, Mr. Dorion was accused of uttering death threats to McGill staff and because of the court imposed conditions issued in April 2017 tied to the criminal complaint, there was no longer a valid reason to pay for his rent and hence McGill rescinded the offer to pay; (ii) none of the Defendants are responsible for the “legal problems” experienced by Mr.

Dorion, since if he experienced any problems, these were caused by his own conduct, and (iii) they deny any malicious prosecution, harassment or making false accusations against him, or wrongfully denying access to his belongings. [ 5 ] Mr. Dorion’s lawsuit is directed against McGill and 20 physical persons. [ 6 ] Sixteen of the individual defendants are McGill employees, including the Dean of Students, Christopher Buddle, and Line Thibault, McGill’s General Counsel. [ 7 ] Four of the individual defendants are employees of a third party service provider who provides security services on the McGill campus.

These 4 defendants all worked at the McGill downtown campus for the time period relevant to these proceedings. [ 8 ] Eighteen of the individual defendants have given Mrs. Thibault a written mandate to represent them for this proceeding (the “ Mandates ”). [1] [ 9 ] Mr. Dorion argues that these Mandates are not valid as they don’t comply with to

article 542 of the Code of Civil Procedure (R.S.Q. ch. C-25 .01) (“ C.C.P. ”) because a mandate given under this

article cannot be given to a lawyer. [ 10 ] Mr. Dorion further argues that Line Thibault cannot represent McGill during these proceedings because she is a lawyer. [2] [ 11 ] On February 1, 2019, a case management conference was held and the Court heard the parties’ arguments on the issues addressed in this judgement. Issues

a) Can McGill be represented by Mrs. Line Thibault?

b) Are the mandates given by 18 of the Defendants to Mrs. Line Thibault valid and comply with

article 542 C.C.P. ? Analysis & Decision

a) Can McGill be represented by Mrs. Line Thibault? [ 12 ] Mr. Dorion argues that since Mrs. Thibault is a lawyer, she cannot be representing McGill in these proceedings. [ 13 ] McGill argues that since Mrs. Thibault is also one of the 20 Defendants, she can represent McGill in these proceedings. [ 14 ]

Article 542 C.C.P. sets out the rules relating to the representation of parties in proceedings governed by the small claims :

542. Les personnes physiques doivent agir elles- mêmes; elles peuvent cependant donner mandat, à

titre gratuit, à leur conjoint, à un parent, à un allié ou à un ami de les représenter. Ce mandat est constaté dans un document identifiant le mandataire, indiquant les motifs pour lesquels la personne est empêchée d’agir et signé par le mandant. L’État, les personnes morales, les sociétés ou les associations ou les autres groupements sans personnalité juridique ne peuvent être représentés que par un dirigeant ou un salarié à leur seul service qui n’est pas avocat . L’avocat ne peut , malgré l’

article 34 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne (chapitre C- 12 ), agir comme mandataire , non plus que l’agent de recouvrement, à moins qu’il ne s’agisse pour eux de recouvrer les honoraires qui sont dus à la société dont ils sont membres. Exceptionnellement, lorsqu’une cause soulève une question complexe sur un point de droit, le tribunal peut, d’office ou à la demande d’une partie, autoriser la représentation des parties par avocat; il doit préalablement obtenir l’accord du juge en chef de la Cour du Québec. Dans ce cas, sauf pour les parties non admissibles à

titre de demandeur suivant le présent titre, les honoraires et les frais des avocats sont à la charge du ministre de la Justice; ils ne peuvent cependant excéder ceux que prévoit le tarif d’honoraires établi par le gouvernement en vertu de la

Loi sur l’aide juridique et sur la prestation de certains autres services juridiques (chapitre A-14 ). Tant les personnes physiques que les personnes morales peuvent consulter un avocat, notamment afin de préparer la présentation de leur dossier. 542. Natural persons must self-represent; they may, however, give their spouse, a relative, a person connected to them by marriage or civil union or a friend a non-remunerated mandate to represent them. The mandate must be recorded in a document identifying the mandatary and stating the reasons why the mandator is unable to self- represent, and be signed by the mandator.

The State, legal persons, partnerships and associations and other groups not endowed with juridical personality can only be represented by an officer or employee in their sole service who is not a lawyer . Despite

section 34 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms (chapter C-12 ), lawyers or collection agents cannot act as mandataries except to recover professional fees owed to the partnership to which they belong. By way of exception, if a case raises a complex issue on a point of law, the court, on its own initiative or on a party’s request, after obtaining the consent of the chief judge of the Court of Québec, may authorize the parties to be represented by lawyers.

In such a case, except for parties who do not qualify as plaintiffs under this Title, the lawyers’ professional fees and costs are borne by the Minister of Justice but cannot exceed those set in the tariff of fees established by the Government under the Act respecting legal aid and the provision of certain other legal services (chapter A-14 ).

Both natural persons and legal persons may consult a lawyer, including for the purpose of preparing the presentation of their case. (Underlining added) [ 15 ] Where a statutory provision at issue is clear and unambiguous, its terms must simply be applied. [3] [ 16 ] Paragraph 2 of

article 542 C.C.P. is clear; the State, partnerships, associations, legal persons such as McGill, and other groups not endowed with juridical personality can only be represented by an officer or employee in their sole service who is not a lawyer. [4] [ 17 ] McGill argues that the Court should read in an exception to article 542 (2) C.C.P. where the lawyer representing the legal person also happens to be a co-defendant. The Court disagrees. [ 18 ] One should not create exceptions to legislation where the language of the statute is plain and obvious.

Moreover, the exception that the Court is invited to consider would lead to a result that is contrary to legislative intent, subject which will be discussed further below. [ 19 ] In conclusion, as Mrs. Thibault is a lawyer, she cannot represent McGill in these proceedings. [ 20 ] McGill is directed to inform the court clerk in writing within 15 days from the date of this judgement of the name of one of its officers or employees who is in their sole service and who is not a lawyer who will represent it during these proceedings.

b) Are the mandates given by 18 of the Defendants to Mrs. Line Thibault valid and comply with

article 542 C.C.P. ? [ 21 ] As a general rule, paragraph 1 of

article 542 C.C.P. states that natural persons must represent themselves in small claims proceedings. [ 22 ] However, the paragraph also goes on to say that natural persons may give their spouse, a relative, a person connected to them by marriage or civil union or a friend a non-remunerated mandate to represent them. The mandate must be recorded in a document identifying the mandatary and stating the reasons why the mandator is unable to self-represent, and be signed by the mandator.

[ 23 ] The question raised in this proceeding is whether the mandatary, in the instant case Mrs. Thibault, may be a lawyer. [ 24 ] Mr. Dorion argues that the person receiving the mandate cannot himself/herself be a lawyer. [ 25 ] It is not contested that Mrs. Thibault, who was mandated by 18 of the defendants, is a lawyer. [ 26 ] Paragraph 1 of

article 542 C.C.P. must be read together with paragraph 3 of the same article: L’avocat ne peut , malgré l’

article 34 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne (chapitre C- 12 ), agir comme mandataire , non plus que l’agent de recouvrement, à moins qu’il ne s’agisse pour eux de recouvrer les honoraires qui sont dus à la société dont ils sont membres. Exceptionnellement, lorsqu’une cause soulève une question complexe sur un point de droit, le tribunal peut, d’office ou à la demande d’une partie, autoriser la représentation des parties par avocat; il doit préalablement obtenir l’accord du juge en chef de la Cour du Québec. Dans ce cas, sauf pour les parties non admissibles à

titre de demandeur suivant le présent titre, les honoraires et les frais des avocats sont à la charge du ministre de la Justice; ils ne peuvent cependant excéder ceux que prévoit le tarif d’honoraires établi par le gouvernement en vertu de la

Loi sur l’aide juridique et sur la prestation de certains autres services juridiques (chapitre A-14 ). Despite

section 34 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms (chapter C-12 ), lawyers or collection agents cannot act as mandataries except to recover professional fees owed to the partnership to which they belong. By way of exception, if a case raises a complex issue on a point of law, the court, on its own initiative or on a party’s request, after obtaining the consent of the chief judge of the Court of Québec, may authorize the parties to be represented by lawyers.

In such a case, except for parties who do not qualify as plaintiffs under this Title, the lawyers’ professional fees and costs are borne by the Minister of Justice but cannot exceed those set in the tariff of fees established by the Government under the Act respecting legal aid and the provision of certain other legal services (chapter A-14 ). (Underlining added) [ 27 ] The language of the statute is clear: lawyers, as a general rule, cannot act as mandataries. [5] [ 28 ] There may be exceptional cases where the Court will allow a person who is also a member of the Québec Bar to act as mandatary for a spouse, a relative or a person connected to them by marriage or civil union.

However, in those rare cases where this has been allowed, the court has pointed out that the person must not play the role of a lawyer. In the few cases where the courts have allowed a person to act as a mandatary where that person also happens to be a lawyer, they have been mindful of maintaining a level playing field between the parties. [6] [ 29 ] In the present case, McGill, Mrs. Thibault’s employer and the employer of the 18 mandators, is one of the parties to the proceedings. It is a large educational institution with hundreds of employees and a legal services department.

If the 18 mandators do not wish to represent themselves and decide to mandate someone to represent them for this proceeding, the Court does not believe that they or McGill will suffer undue prejudice in identifying another McGill employee who is not a lawyer and who may be able to act as a mandatary for the 18 mandators. [ 30 ] The rule of self-representation is consistent with the general framework of the Code of Civil Procedure and legislative intent governing representation of parties in proceedings taken under the small claims rules. [ 31 ] Self-representation is the rule before the small claims division. [7] This is to further the legislator’s goal of creating a simple mechanism that favours improving access to justice.

As Justice Jean-François Gosselin wrote in Lajeunesse c. Assoc. provinciale des constructeurs d'habitations du Québec Inc. (APCHQ) : [13] Il est donc clair qu'en règle générale, les parties doivent se représenter elles-mêmes. Cela est par ailleurs cohérent avec la philosophie sous-tendant le régime procédural applicable aux petites créances. En effet, le législateur a introduit cette procédure simple, sans formalisme et rapide dans le but de permettre aux justiciables de recouvrer des sommes de faible valeur à peu de coûts.

Il a en outre misé sur l'accessibilité et configuré le régime de façon à favoriser le maintien d'un équilibre substantif et procédural entre les parties, l'une ne devant pas être avantagée par rapport à l'autre.

D'où la règle générale de l'exclusion des avocats, qui s'applique malgré la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne (article 997.1 CPC), et son corollaire: c'est le juge qui «procède lui-même à l'interrogatoire» des témoins et qui «apporte à chacun un secours équitable et impartial de façon à faire apparaître le droit et à en assurer la sanction» (art. 976 al. 1 CPC). [8] [ 32 ] While Justice Gosselin’s was writing about

article 959 of the Old Code of Civil Preocedure [9] , his comments are equally applicable to

article 542 C.C.P. which replaced

article 959 when the new Code of Civil Procedure came into force. Indeed, in the Commentaires de la ministre de la justice , the Minister of Justice writes: Cet

article reprend essentiellement l’article 959 du code antérieur, en y apportant quelques modifications. Ainsi, au deuxième alinéa, il est précisé que le dirigeant ou le salarié au service de l’État, d’une personne morale, d’une société, d’une association ou d’un autre groupement ne peut avoir la qualité d’avocat, et ce, afin de maintenir un certain équilibre entre les parties . Au troisième alinéa, la disposition précise l’article de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne (RLRQ, c.

C-12 ), auquel il est fait exception, et prévoit également que l'impossibilité pour l’avocat ou l’agent de recouvrement d'agir en qualité de mandataire ne s'applique pas pour la réclamation d'honoraires dus à la société dont ils sont membres.

[Underlining added] [ 33 ] In interpreting

article 542 C.C.P. , the Court must be mindful of maintaining a level playing field between the parties. [ 34 ] Allowing Mrs. Thibault to act as mandatary could render the playing field uneven between Mr. Dorion and the Defendants. This is not a result that is desirable in any case. [ 35 ] In light of the foregoing, the mandates given by the 18 Defendants to Mrs. Thibault are not valid as she cannot act as a mandatary considering that she is a lawyer. [ 36 ] These Defendants must either represent themselves or file new written mandates that comply with

article 542 C.C.P.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 37 ] DECLARES that McGill University cannot be represented in the present proceeding by Line Thibault; [ 38 ] DECLARES that the 18 mandates given to Line Thibault by the following defendants: Christopher Martin Buddle, Edith Breiner, Glenn Zabowski, Victoria Percival Hilton, Ismail Lahtaial, Antonina Paliotti, Ruben Tadeia, Elio Taddeo, Guillermina Robles Flores, Dimitrios Petropoulos, Dave Clark, Mugisha Mubarraka, Matthew Kogan, Matthew Vairogs, Alexandra Gregorian, Mélanie Ouellette, Kelly Pierre Paul and Jeremme Doucette, are not valid; [ 39 ] ORDERS Christopher Martin Buddle, Edith Breiner, Glenn Zabowski, Victoria Percival Hilton, Ismail Lahtaial, Antonina Paliotti, Ruben Tadeia, Elio Taddeo, Guillermina Robles Flores, Dimitrios Petropoulos, Dave Clark, Mugisha Mubarraka, Matthew Kogan, Matthew Vairogs, Alexandra Gregorian, Mélanie Ouellette, Kelly Pierre Paul and Jeremme Doucette, if they elect to represent themselves, to sign the Defendants’ Amended Joint Statement of Facts and Defense and file the signed pleading with the court office within 15 days from the date of this judgement; OR ALTERNATIVELY , if they elect to mandate a person to represent them, ORDERS each of these Defendants to file with the court office within 15 days from the date of this judgement, new written mandates that comply with

article 542 C.C.P . and ORDERS their mandatary(ies) to sign the Defendants’ Amended Joint Statement of Facts and Defense and to file the signed pleading with the court office within the same delay; [ 40 ] ORDERS McGill University to inform the court clerk’s office in writing within 15 days from the date of this judgement of the name of one of its officers or employees who is in their sole service who is not a lawyer who will represent it during these proceedings. [ 41 ] WITHOUT COSTS. __________________________________ ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: February 1, 2019