2018 QCCQ 9511, 2018 QCCQ 9511

Morris c. Landry 2018 QCCQ 9511 COURT OF QUEBEC “Small Claims Division” CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU LOCALITY OF GATINEAU “Civil Division” No.: 550-32-024130-178 DATE: November 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE PATSY BOUTHILLETTE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ADRIAN L. MORRIS Plaintiff v.

ANDRÉ LANDRY and RELANCE DE L’OUTAOUAIS and VILLE DE GATINEAU Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The plaintiff claims $15,000 in damages from André Landry, Relance de l’Outaouais (hereinafter “ Relance ”), and the Ville de Gatineau for violating his fundamental rights. [ 2 ] The defendants deny the plaintiff’s version of the facts and claim that they did not commit any fault or violate any fundamental right of the plaintiff. [ 3 ] The Ville de Gatineau further claims that the action against it is prescribed because the proceeding was instituted more than six months after the alleged events.

BACKGROUND [ 4 ] The defendant, Relance, asked the Ville de Gatineau police force to intervene several times in incidents involving the plaintiff. [ 5 ] Among others, on July 6, 2016, the police intervened after receiving a call regarding disorderly conduct in the Relance premises by the plaintiff, who was acting aggressively toward the staff. [ 6 ] At that time, the police advised the plaintiff not to return to Relance. [ 7 ] The Relance property was subsequently the target of mischief several times. [ 8 ] On September 23, 2016, the plaintiff returned to the Relance premises and swore at the employees.

Other incidents were also reported. [ 9 ] Following these various incidents, Relance took steps to obtain a peace bond against the plaintiff. A decision on that application was rendered on November 6, 2017. [ 10 ] The plaintiff claims damages on the ground that his right to obtain services from Relance was infringed. ISSUE [ 11 ] The issue is the following: - Did the defendants commit a fault against the plaintiff by violating his fundamental rights? ANALYSIS [ 12 ] The evidence established that Relance offers employment assistance services, which is not the same as employment placement services.

[ 13 ] Clients are well aware that there is a Code of Conduct, and that the Code must be respected to use the services provided by the organization. [ 14 ] The evidence clearly established that the plaintiff received services from Relance, both in the form of support and access to computer equipment. [ 15 ] The plaintiff uses the organization’s services regularly and is well aware that using the services does not guarantee him employment. [ 16 ] Even though the plaintiff was warned several times, he behaved in a disturbing manner toward the Relance staff and, as such, upset the other clients. [ 17 ] The decision of the director, André Landry, to remove the plaintiff was wise because the director had to protect the safety of not only the other clients, but his staff as well. [ 18 ] Therefore, the plaintiff’s removal for failing to comply with the organization’s rules did not violate the plaintiff’s rights. [ 19 ] Mr.

Landry and Relance committed no fault in this regard. [ 20 ] The plaintiff entered no evidence establishing that any employee of the Ville de Gatineau committed a fault. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 21 ] DISMISSES the application against the three defendants; [ 22 ] EACH party to pay its own legal costs. __________________________________ PATSY BOUTHILLETTE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: August 21, 2018