2022 QCCQ 9700, 2022 QCCQ 9700

E.M. c. Government of Israel 2022 QCCQ 9700 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-717696-225 DATE: November 21, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ E. M. Plaintiff v.

GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE COURT CLERK ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff wishes to sue the Government of Israel for allegedly psychologically and physically harassing her, torture, and attempt to murder. [ 2 ] On April 11, 2022, she filed an application in damages against the Government of Israel claiming $15,000. [ 3 ] By decision dated April 12, 2022, the court clerk ruled that her application was not admissible under the rules governing the recovery of small claims given the immunity from prosecution set forth in the State Immunity Act (R.S.C. 1985 ch.

S-18 ). [ 4 ] The plaintiff filed an application for review of the decision ruling her claim inadmissible. She argues that the Government of Israel does not benefit from immunity of prosecution given the terms of

section 8 of the State Immunity Act . [ 5 ] This application is one of forty applications that Ms. M. has filed with the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec between April 2021 and April 2022 against various defendants, including foreign states, former employers or work colleagues, a physician who provided medical care to her and a hospital.

In all but a few of these applications, she alleges that she was psychologically and physically harassed at the “brain/mind level” by the defendant. [ 6 ] The undersigned was appointed to case manage 31 of these lawsuits pursuant to court orders issued on December 2, 2021 and July 7, 2022. [1] Analysis [ 7 ] In Canada, state immunity from civil sues is codified in the State Immunity Act . The principle is stated as follows in

section 3 of the Act : 3

(1) Except as provided by this Act, a foreign state is immune from the jurisdiction of any court in Canada.

(2) In any proceedings before a court, the court shall give effect to the immunity conferred on a foreign state by subsection (1) notwithstanding that the state has failed to take any step in the proceedings. 3

(1) Sauf exceptions prévues dans la présente loi, l’État étranger bénéficie de l’immunité de juridiction devant tout tribunal au Canada.

(2) Le tribunal reconnaît d’office l’immunité visée au paragraphe (1) même si l’État étranger s’est abstenu d’agir dans l’instance. [ 8 ] However, the statute provides for certain exceptions to state immunity in sections 5, 6 and 8: 5 A foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a court in any proceedings that relate to any commercial activity of the foreign state. 6 A foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a court in any proceedings that relate to 5 L’État étranger ne bénéficie pas de l’immunité de juridiction dans les actions qui portent sur ses activités commerciales. 6 L’État étranger ne bénéficie pas de l’immunité de juridiction dans les actions découlant :

a) des décès ou dommages corporels survenus

(

a) any death or personal or bodily injury, or (

b) any damage to or loss of property that occurs in Canada. 6.1

(1) A foreign state that is set out on the list referred to in subsection (2) is not immune from the jurisdiction of a court in proceedings against it for its support of terrorism on or after January 1, 1985.

(2) The Governor in Council may, by order, establish a list on which the Governor in Council may, at any time, set out the name of a foreign state if, on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs made after consulting with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign state supported or supports terrorism.

(3) The list must be established no later than six months after the day on which this

section comes into force.

(4) On application in writing by a foreign state, the Minister of Foreign Affairs must, after consulting with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, decide whether there are reasonable grounds to recommend to the Governor in Council that the applicant no longer be set out on the list.

(5) The Minister of Foreign Affairs must without delay give notice to the applicant of that Minister’s decision respecting the application.

(6) A foreign state set out on the list may not make another application under subsection (4), unless there has been a material change in its circumstances since the foreign state made its last application or the Minister of Foreign Affairs has completed the review under subsection (7).

(7) Two years after the establishment of the list, and every two years after that, the Minister of Foreign Affairs must (

a) review the list in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to determine whether there are still reasonable grounds, as set out in subsection (2), for a foreign state to be set out on the list and make a recommendation to the Governor in Council as to whether the foreign state should remain set out on the list; and (

b) review the list in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to determine whether there are reasonable grounds, as set out in subsection (2), for a foreign state that is not set out on the list to be set out on the list and make a recommendation to the Governor in Council as to whether the foreign state should be set out on the list.

(8) The review does not affect the validity of the list. au Canada;

b) des dommages aux biens ou perte de ceux-ci survenus au Canada. 6.1

(1) L’État étranger inscrit sur la liste visée au paragraphe (2) ne bénéficie pas de l’immunité de juridiction dans les actions intentées contre lui pour avoir soutenu le terrorisme le 1 er janvier 1985 ou après cette date.

(2) Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par décret, établir une liste sur laquelle il peut, dès lors et par la suite, inscrire tout État étranger s’il est convaincu, sur la recommandation du ministre des Affaires étrangères faite après consultation du ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile, qu’il existe des motifs raisonnables de croire que cet État soutient ou a soutenu le terrorisme.

(3) La liste doit être établie dans les six mois suivant la date d’entrée en vigueur du présent article.

(4) Le ministre des Affaires étrangères, saisi d’une demande écrite présentée par un État étranger, décide, après consultation du ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile, s’il existe des motifs raisonnables de recommander ou non au gouverneur en conseil de radier cet État de la liste.

(5) Il donne sans délai au demandeur un avis de la décision qu’il a rendue relativement à la demande.

(6) L’État étranger ne peut présenter une nouvelle demande de radiation en vertu du paragraphe (4) que si sa situation a évolué d’une manière importante depuis la présentation de sa dernière demande ou que si le ministre a terminé l’examen mentionné au paragraphe (7).

(7) Deux ans après l’établissement de la liste et tous les deux ans par la suite, le ministre des Affaires étrangères :

a) examine celle-ci, après consultation du ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile, pour savoir si les motifs visés au paragraphe (2) justifiant l’inscription d’un État étranger sur la liste existent toujours et recommande au gouverneur en conseil de radier ou non cet État de la liste;

b) examine la liste, après consultation de ce ministre, pour savoir s’il existe des motifs, visés au paragraphe (2), justifiant l’inscription sur cette liste d’un État étranger non encore inscrit sur celle-ci et recommande au gouverneur en conseil d’inscrire ou non cet État sur la liste.

(8) L’examen est sans effet sur la validité de la liste.

(9) The Minister of Foreign Affairs must complete the review as soon as feasible, but in any case within 120 days, after its commencement. After completing the review, that Minister must without delay cause a notice to be published in the Canada Gazette that it has been completed.

(10) If proceedings for support of terrorism are commenced against a foreign state that is set out on the list, the subsequent removal of the foreign state from the list does not have the effect of restoring the state’s immunity from the jurisdiction of a court in respect of those proceedings or any related appeal or enforcement proceedings.

(11) Where a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that a foreign state, set out on the list in subsection (2), has supported terrorism, that foreign state is also not immune from the jurisdiction of a court in proceedings against it that relate to terrorist activity by the state. … 8 A foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of a court in any proceedings that relate to an interest or, in the Province of Quebec, a right of the state in property that arises by way of succession, gift or bona vacantia .

(9) Le ministre termine son examen dans les meilleurs délais mais au plus tard cent vingt jours après l’avoir commencé. Une fois l’examen terminé, il fait publier sans délai un avis à cet effet dans la Gazette du Canada .

(10) La radiation de l’État étranger de la liste après que des actions ont été intentées contre lui pour avoir soutenu le terrorisme n’a pas pour effet de restaurer l’immunité de juridiction de celui-ci dans ces actions ou dans tout appel ou procédure d’exécution connexe.

(11) L’État étranger inscrit sur la liste visée au paragraphe (2) à l’égard duquel un tribunal compétent a conclu qu’il avait soutenu le terrorisme ne bénéficie pas de l’immunité de juridiction dans les actions intentées contre lui relativement à une activité terroriste à laquelle il s’est livré. … 8 L’État étranger ne bénéficie pas de l’immunité de juridiction dans les actions portant sur la reconnaissance de ses intérêts ou, dans la province de Québec, de ses droits sur des biens dépendant d’une succession ou d’une donation, ou vacants. [ 9 ] The court clerk ruled that the State of Israel was immune from prosecution under

section 3 of the Act and declared the application inadmissible. He did not consider whether any of the exceptions to state immunity apply. [ 10 ] The plaintiff argues that the exception to state immunity found in

section 8 of the Act applies. [ 11 ] To determine whether state immunity or any of the exceptions provided for in the statute apply, it is useful to reproduce below the allegations of the plaintiff’s application: 1. The Plaintiff is suing the Defendant for the following reasons: I sue for psychologically and physically harassment, torture, attempt to murder and anything that is not my will/what I want. I want them to pay $15000 and end in my terms or to be put in jail. 2. The facts occurred on or around March 20, 2017, at Pierrefonds (Quebec). 3. The amount of the claim is $15,000.00. 4.

The Plaintiff makes the following clarifications to the facts set out above: In 2017 in march I received on my physic an entity as Jesus and I had been harassed psychologically and physically and I had been tortured with tooth picks around my eyes and forced to accept him and the message that I am sacrificing for Jesus and easter. I sue Israel for Jesus wanted to steal my entity(read as identity) and torture and forcing/imposing to be accepted.

I sue for the fact that he is born in Israel and I have been tortured by entities/people who play with/as Jesus(Daniel Florin Neagu, etc.) I sue for psychologically and physically harassment, torture and attempt to murder. And for threatening myself with death and my son with death and his father with death or other threatening. And for anything that is not my will/what I want.

I apply the Charter of freedom and human rights. ( sic ) [ 12 ] To say the least, the allegations are incoherent, contorted and unbelievable. [ 13 ] It is clear from the allegations of the application that immunity from prosecution by operation of section 3 (1) of the Act applies. [ 14 ] Likewise, the exception to state immunity found in

section 8 does not apply since the claim does not relate to a “right of the state in property that arises by way of succession, gift or bona vacantia ”. [ 15 ] Similarly, for the reasons set out in Kazemi Estate v. Iran [2] , the exception to immunity in

section 6 of the State Immunity Act does not apply to the facts of this case. Indeed, even a generous and purposive reading of the allegations of the application do not show that the alleged personal injury occurred in Canada. [ 16 ] The court clerk’s decision to determine the application not admissible is well founded. [ 17 ] Over and above state immunity, the allegations contained in the application, especially those set out in paragraph 4, are so implausible and unbelievable that to allow this claim to proceed any further would constitute an abuse of process.

There is no legal principle in Québec law that would hold the Government of Israel accountable for the acts of a third party, much less alleged telepathic torture committed by “Jesus”. Therefore, even if one of the exceptions to state immunity were to apply, the Court would raise the

principle of abuse of procedure on its own initiative and dismiss the plaintiff’s application under articles 51 and 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure . FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 18 ] DISMISSES the application to review the court clerk’s decision. __________________________________ ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q.