2022 QCCQ 1138, 2022 QCCQ 1138

Modeste c. Fahrat 2022 QCCQ 1138 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL « Civil Division» No: 500-32-159999-194 DATE: March 21, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DANIEL DORTÉLUS ______________________________________________________________________ HERMAN MODESTE Plaintiff v.

NAYEF FAHRAT Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Here are the written motives of the verbal judgment rendered at the hearing dismissing Mr Modeste’s application. [ 2 ] Mr Modeste is claiming from Mr Fahrat $ 500 for damages. [ 3 ] A judgment was rendered by default on November 1, 2021, dismissing Mr Modeste’s application given that he was absent. [ 4 ] Given that Mr.

Modeste filed an application for revocation of the judgment ; [ 5 ] Given that the convocation notice for hearing was sent to the wrong address ; [ 6 ] The application for revocation of judgment is granted. THE ISSUES [ 7 ] This case raises the following issues : 1) Did Mr Fahrat failed to fulfill his obligation as a servant or agent of the Crown, when he meet Mr Modeste to receive his documents to be forwarded to the inspector Joé Lambert-Beauregard ? 2) Does the protection for personal liability of section (17) of the Radiocommunication Act applies in this case ?

THE FACTS [ 8 ] In December following a litigation with the Municipality of Longueuil concerning the inspection by an engineer of Mr Modeste’s radio amateur tower, he requested the assistance of the CRTC. [ 9 ] Mr Modeste accepted to bring his documents to M. Fahrat, who worked as an inspector for CRTC, in Montreal. The Mandate of M. Fahrat was limited to receive the documents and to forward them to Mr J. Lambert-Beauregard, an inspector based in the city of Sherbrooke who was responsible to assess Mr Modeste’s request. [ 10 ] In his testimony, Mr J.

Lambert-Beauregard confirms the limited intervention of Mr Fahrat. [ 11 ] On January 7, 2019, Mr J. Lambert-Beauregard sent an email to Mr Roger Thuot for advise : […] Objet : Structure porteuse d'antennes d'un radioamateur Bonjour et bonne année 2019,

Roger : Jeudi le 27 décembre, j'ai eu une requête d'un radioamateur de Longueuil qui est aux prises avec une demande que je trouvais assez inusitée pour un radioamateur. La ville de Longueuil lui demande de fournir un rapport d'ingénierie sur la solidité de la structure.

La demande fait déjà l'objet d'un jugement de la cour municipale, et l'omission de ce rapport constitue une infraction en continue, qui pourrait éventuellement de résoudre par une saisie (de la structure ou de la maison?, c'est pas mentionné). […] [ 12 ] The same day, Mr Thuot answers : […] Joé, notre Nous ne jouons pas de rôle dans la réglementation des structures de support d'antenne en ce qui a trait à I’intégrité structurelle, le promoteur en est entièrement responsable.

Pour les entreprises fédérales (radiodiffuseurs et entreprises de télécommunication), l'intégrité structurelle est abordée par le biais d'autres exigences imposées par d'autres organismes de réglementation (Code canadien du travail, CSA), mais ce n'est pas le cas pour les amateurs. Pour les tours d'amateur, c'est davantage un problème de responsabilité entre voisins ou entrent l'amateur et l'ARUS. Ce sujet à fait l'objet de discussion en 2011 et fut réaffirmé en 2013 par DLS.

Conclusion, nous ne nous en mêlons pas et ne devrions pas le conseiller non plus (genre il pourrait faire affaire avec un ingénieur qui confirmerait ou non, l'intégrité structurelle de sa tour....) [ 13 ] Following the assessment of Mr Modeste’s request, Mr J.

Lambert-Beauregard informed him that ISED can’t get implicated, at the level of requirement for structural integrity of his tower, since this does not fall within the competency of the ministry. [ 14 ] Mr Modeste’s grievances are outlined in his written declaration dated March 7, 2019 : In the month of December 2018 I was instructed by the Canadian Radio-television and Télécommunications Commision based in Ottawa (following a request I made to them for., help regarding an accusation and conviction at the Longueil municipal court in which , the city had ordered me to have my Radio Amateur tower inspected by an ingineer.) To contact the Montreal headquarters of the ISED,( I submit a copy of the document for clarification ; On the 31 of December following a phone conversation with Mr Nayef Fahrat I went to his office ISED and gave him all the information on the matter which he promised a reply on soon.

I can not get a response from him by letter or by phone since that time. […] THE REASONS [ 15 ] Article 17 (1) of the Radiocommunication Act provides protection from personal liability : Protection from personal liability 17

(1) No action or other proceeding for damages lies or may be instituted against a Minister, servant or agent of the Crown for or in respect of anything done or omitted to be done, or purported to be done or omitted to be done, in good faith under this Act or any order or regulation issued or made under this Act. [1] [ 16 ] Clearly, Mr Fahrat working at the capacity of inspector for ISED, is covered by the protection provided in section 17 (1) or RCA. [ 17 ] Mr Modeste recourse against Mr Fahrat is not receivable, unless, the proof of bad faith, which is not the case here. [ 18 ] CONSIDERING that the protection from personal liability of section 17 (1) of the Radiocommunication Act is applicable in this case ; [ 19 ] CONSIDERING that there is no evidence that Mr Fahrat have failed to fulfill his legal obligation, since the inspection of the structure of radio tower is not covered by the Radiocommunication Act ; [ 20 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] GRANTS the application for revocation of judgment ; [ 22 ] DISMISSES applicant’s claim against the respondent. ________________________ DANIEL DORTÉLUS, J.C.Q.

Date of hearing: March 16, 2022