2022 QCCQ 9942, 2022 QCCQ 9942

Itaat Wasty v. Aéroports De Montréal 2022 QCCQ 9942 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-160691-194 DATE: December 12, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ITAAT WASTY Plaintiff v.

AÉROPORTS DE MONTRÉAL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff is suing defendant, Aéroports de Montréal, in damages, for $15,000.00. [ 2 ] Plaintiff contends that he was a victim of physical and psychological harassment by defendant and its employees. [ 3 ] At trial, plaintiff stated that he “quit his job due to stressors caused by defendant”.

He accused defendant’s employees of “physical harassment, psychological harassment, physical detention or severe restriction of movement and public humiliation in front of the entire airport”. He stated that he suffered from worry, anxiety and stress because of defendant’s employees’ actions. THE FACTS [ 4 ] Plaintiff’s allegations, which revolve around 3 separate incidents, can be summarized as follows.

a) Incident number 1 [ 5 ] On January 28, 2017, Fatemah Muhammad, a member of defendant’s security staff, issued plaintiff a ticket for the following reasons: « ne s’est pas conformé aux instructions figurant sur un panneau de signalisation » (« rapport d’infraction », exhibit P-5). [ 6 ] On July 10, 2018, plaintiff appeared in Court, for the said infraction, and pleaded guilty. [ 7 ] The nature of his complaints against Muhammad are unclear. Plaintiff stated that, when he appeared at Court, he “was last in line” and “stood out as the only non-Caucasian”; but was unable to explain his reasons for reproaching Muhammad.

b) Incident number 2 [ 8 ] Plaintiff then referred to an incident which would have allegedly taken place at “Tim Hortons at the airport”, in July or August, 2018. [ 9 ] He purports to have seen Muhammad in or around the premises, while he was waiting in line, but he “walked away to avoid an incident”. However, plaintiff admitted that “nothing happened”, and that his anger, fear and impatience were purely subjective and based on his own anxiety.

c) Incident number 3 [ 10 ] Lastly, plaintiff stated that, on August 9, 2018, as he was dropping off his sister and her children at the airport, he was intercepted by Muhammad and her colleagues, at which time he was “harassed”, “jabbed”, “shoved”, “blocked” and interrogated.

[ 11 ] Plaintiff’s father testified on plaintiff’s behalf, and explained that his son felt “harassed and was afraid to go to the airport, because he felt threated by Muhammad”. ANALYSIS [ 12 ] Plaintiff, who had the burden of proving defendant’s faults and omissions, as well as damages and a causal link between the two, by a preponderance of evidence ( s. 2803 and 2804 Civil Code of Quebec ), failed to do so. [ 13 ] Muhammad testified in a credible and convincing fashion. [ 14 ] When she described incidents numbers 1 and 2, it became evident that nothing illegal or untoward occurred.

She issued plaintiff a ticket for a traffic violation without incident, and she never saw plaintiff at Tim Hortons, as alleged. [ 15 ] As regards incident number 3, Muhammad explained how and why she questioned plaintiff, whose behaviour was suspicious (he was taking pictures and videos of a police operation going on at the time, for no apparent reason; he did not walk through the airport, as a person visiting the airport normally would: « Il n’effectuait pas le cheminement d’un passager normal – son intérêt de rester autour de nous et de nous filmer, alors que la civière et la police étaient parties (sortait de l’ordinaire) … Monsieur n’a pas voulu répondre à nos questions.

Je ne trouvais pas de raison pour sa présence, et cela a soulevé un doute. Il n’est pas inhabituel pour des gens de venir voir (les lieux) ou tester notre système de sécurité… Je l’ai suivi parce qu’il se dirigeait vers un point de sécurité et je ne voulais pas qu’il traverse sans carte d’embarquement. Il n’a jamais parlé de sa famille ». [ 16 ] At the hearing, the Court watched the video of the events that took place on August 9, 2018.

The footage corroborated Muhammad’s testimony, rather than plaintiff’s version of the events. [ 17 ] Although plaintiff’s allegations, which are plainly subjective and fear-based seem real to both himself and his father, they are not objectively based on the evidence adduced at trial. [ 18 ] In the end, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant and its employees committed a fault or acted in an irresponsible, unreasonable or abusive manner towards him, at any time. [ 19 ] Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in Adam Pingel’s sworn declaration, dated September 9, 2022, it is stated that it was plaintiff himself who asked for a leave of absence from Avis Budget Group Inc., in order to go back to school; and it was plaintiff himself who eventually resigned from his position, contrary to his allegations to the effect that Muhammad’s “sustained acts of harassment… caused (him) to quit (his) job” (appendix to plaintiff’s claim, page 2).

WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiff's application, without costs. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: October 12, 2022