2019 QCCQ 3184, 2019 QCCQ 3184

Tavares c. Société des établissements de plein air du Québec 2019 QCCQ 3184 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-702455-173 DATE: May 24, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY EDWARDS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ RICARDO TAVARES Plaintiff v.

SOCIÉTÉ DES ÉTABLISSEMENTS DE PLEIN AIR DU QUÉBEC -and- MINISTÈRE DU TRAVAIL, DE L’EMPLOI ET DE LA SOLIDARITÉ SOCIALE -and- TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIF DU QUÉBEC -and- L’AGENCE DU REVENU DU QUÉBEC Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ Overview [ 1 ] Ricardo Tavares alleges that the defendants have discriminated against him on the basis that he is a man, that they pursue a radical feminist agenda, and that they have conspired against him to ruin his life. Mr. Tavares claims damages of $4,000,000.

In order to file a recourse in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec, he has reduced his claim to $15,000. All of the defendants deny having committed any fault with regard to Mr. Tavares. Question in Issue Has Mr. Tavares proved a fault on the part of any of the defendants, including that they have collectively conspired to violate his rights? Context [ 2 ] Given the unique content of Mr. Tavares’ allegations, the Court will quote the general allegations made against all of the defendants in his proceedings. Mr. Tavares states in part as follows: 5.

The Plaintiff claims an amount of $4,000,000 for the following reasons: Having government agencies used to destroy my life without a fair hearing. It starts with no equal shared parenting laws. Having feminist propaganda in our government. 6. The Plaintiff agrees to reduce the amount of the claim to $15,000 so that it falls within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division.

7. The total amount claimed by the Plaintiff is broken down as follows: $1,000,000 for 30 years of being a criminal in the eyes of the law because you are a real man. $1,000,000 for government paying for feminist propaganda in the 1990’s to make my wife disrespect me thinking I was a Brute. $1,000,000 for not having equal shared parenting to make the BAR association to profit. $1,000,000 for colluding with Sepaq to kick me out by making it into a dirty ecological zone. 8.

The Plaintiff makes the following clarifications to the facts set out above: This country has succeeded in taking my child away from me and taking my joy to live. The feminist agendas they support and employ has to be stopped. [ 3 ] Mr. Tavares states that some of the alleged illegal acts with respect to him were committed by the defendants in the 1990’s. Given the general nature of Mr. Tavares’ allegations, on a preliminary basis, all the defendants raised the defence of the three (3) year deadline of extinctive prescription with respect to alleged misconduct before July 26, 2014. [ 4 ]

Article 2925 of the Civil Code of Quebec ( C.C.Q. ) reads as follows: 2925. L’action qui tend à faire valoir un droit personnel ou un droit réel mobilier et dont le délai de prescription n’est pas autrement fixé se prescrit par trois ans. 2925. An action to enforce a personal right or movable real right is prescribed by three years, if the prescriptive period is not otherwise determined. [ 5 ] Mr. Tavares instituted the present proceeding on July 26, 2017. The Court explained to Mr. Tavares that his proof of fault in light of

Article 2925 C.C.Q. should relate to acts or omissions of defendants in the three (3) year period preceding that date, namely after July 26, 2014. The Court also advised Mr. Tavares that, regarding his claim for defamation for $1,000,000, it was not admissible under the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Division of the Court of Quebec. Article 537 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure ( C.C.P. ) reads as follows: 537. Le présent

titre ne s’applique pas aux demandes résultant du bail d’un logement, portant sur une pension alimentaire ou alléguant une diffamation . Il ne s’applique pas non plus aux demandes soumises par une personne, une société ou une association ou un autre groupement sans personnalité juridique qui a acquis à

titre onéreux la créance d’autrui. 537. This Title does not apply to applications arising from the lease of a dwelling, applications for support or applications alleging defamation . Nor does it apply to applications brought by a person, a partnership or an association or another group not endowed with juridical personality on the basis of a claim assigned to them in return for payment. [Emphasis added.] [ 6 ] Apart from Mr. Tavares’s own testimony, he did not adduce any documentary evidence regarding the faults alleged against defendants.

The Court will review the specific allegations made against each of the defendants. Allegations against Société des établissements de plein air du Québec (SEPAQ) [ 7 ] With respect to SEPAQ, Mr. Tavares alleges: 1. On or around March 5, 2017, the defendant caused the following damage to the Plaintiff: I was treated as a criminal even though I had shown an entry pass at the gate. I was brutally arrested even though I had put my hands behind my back. I was a tax paying citizen. I was treated as an animal even though I did not do a criminal act. My car was searched for fire arms with no reason to.

I lost my respect for civil society and the French culture. I have a depressed state and will not ever work in this society, because I believe I have no more contribution to this Province.

2. The defendant is liable for the damage for the following reasons: The defendants is liable because he caused this very dangerous situation to escalate. The defendant is a government agency and abused its power to defame and humiliate me, in collusion with the SQ Police, MESS, Quebec Bar, Government Prosecutor. 3. The fault was committed on or around March 5, 2017 at Oka (Quebec). [ 8 ] Between 1990 and 2017, Mr. Tavares used and enjoyed the facilities at one of SEPAQ’s facilities, namely the one known as “Oka Park”. [ 9 ] It is admitted that at approximately 4:00 p.m. on March 5, 2017, after Mr.

Tavares gained access to the park, the authorities thereof requested that he leave since he had no valid entry pass. After he refused, the park’s authorities called for assistance of the Sûreté du Québec or the Quebec Provincial Police ( QPP ). As Mr. Tavares refused to leave the park, he was arrested, handcuffed and brought to the local QPP station. He was kept in a holding cell for approximately three (3) hours and was then released. [ 10 ] The details with respect to some of the circumstances regarding his detention and incarceration by the QPP on that day are stated by Mr.

Tavares in a complaint made by him to the Commissaire à la déontologie policière du Québec (Quebec Police Ethics Commissioner (QPEC) [1] ). The complaint reads as follows: “I would like to complain about my incarceration at the SQ police station this weekend past. I am having trouble with the Park Sepaq at Oka. I have been going to that beach for 27 years. This year I had my pass barred from the park in September 2016. I did get another pass under another fake name. I paid full price. Every time I go to the park I show it. All the employees know that I am barred.

They always tell me that I am barred, I always show my pass and go straight in. They called the police this time and I got three $149 tickets from the SQ. I had protested this day to the SQ, and they almost broke my wrist putting their cuffs. Then I also was taken to their station got pushed around and spent three hours in a cell. I had my one phone call to a lawyer and she explained to me they were either going to release me or keep me overnight. They were talking to the prosecutor. I talked to her at around 4:20 pm and was released at 7:15 pm. These kids abuse their power in Quebec and push people around.

I also got my car searched for firearms.” [ 11 ] The Court is not called upon to rule on whether the actions or measures taken that day by the QPP officers were excessive or illegal. Mr. Tavares has not sued the QPP. He has only sued SEPAQ in regard to the involvement of its representatives with respect to that incident. Mr. Tavares mentioned that his complaint to the QPEC was dismissed and that he did not ask for revision of that decision. [ 12 ] So the question before the Court is whether the park officials committed a fault by revoking Mr.

Tavares’ park attendance privileges and in calling the QPP to have him removed. [ 13 ] According to the representative of the park, Marie-Ève Brassard, Mr. Tavares was warned on numerous occasions that he had, by his actions, violated the regulations and policies of the park. [ 14 ] On June 16, 2016, the Director of the park sent a letter ( Warning Letter [2] ) to Mr. Tavares advising of six (6) violations of the park rules by him. Several of the violations had occurred on a repetitive basis, and despite verbal warnings. The Warning Letter stated that any further violation by Mr.

Tavares would result in the revocation of his park access privileges. [ 15 ] The Warning Letter reads in part as follows: “La Société des établissements de plein air du Québec gère et exploite le parc national d’Oka. À ce titre, nous désirons vous informer que votre carte d’accès annuelle et votre vignette de stationnement pourraient être résiliées. Depuis plus d’un an, nous constatons que vous persistez à ne pas respecter la réglementation du parc, et ce même après plusieurs avertissements du personnel sur le terrain.

Notamment, le 29 janvier 2015, vous avez déclaré spontanément à l’un de nos employés que vous étiez l’auteur de vandalisme et de

graffitis faits sur des arbres dans le secteur de la plage Est. Du 7 août 2015 au 28 janvier 2016, vous avez quitté le parc après les heures d’ouverture à plusieurs reprises, et ce malgré les avertissements répétés de notre personnel. Le 17 février 2016, malgré un avertissement reçu 3 semaines plus tôt, vous avez déneigé vous-même une

section de la plage alors que vous n’étiez pas sans savoir qu’il s’agit d’une pratique interdite. Cette même journée, Raphaël Goulet, responsable de la protection, vous a laissé un message vocal sur votre cellulaire personnel pour vous réitérer que tout aménagement était interdit dans le parc, et que tout manquement à cet égard serait passible d’une expulsion, voire d’un retrait de votre carte annuelle. Un rappel à cet égard vous a été fait en personne le 8 avril 2016 par la coordonnatrice à la protection, Mme Marie-Ève Brassard.

Le 13 mai 2016, vous avez déclaré spontanément dans une lettre envoyée à la direction du parc que le filet de volleyball démonté par notre personnel 2 jours plus tôt était de votre propre construction alors que de telles installations ne sont pas permises. Finalement, le 1 er juin dernier, vous avez déclaré spontanément dans un commentaire reçu sur notre système en-ligne avoir déplacé une grande quantité de sable avec des chaudières dans le but d’installer un filet de volleyball sur la plage. […] La direction du parc a été tolérante à votre égard et vous a accordé la chance de vous conformer à la réglementation.

Il semble que vous ayez plutôt choisi de faire fi de cette ouverture de notre part. Compte tenu de ce qui précède, de votre comportement déplorable et dans un objectif de respect envers notre clientèle et nos employés, vous êtes par la présente formellement avisé qu’advenant toute autre contravention à la réglementation applicable au parc, votre carte annuelle et votre vignette de stationnement seront résiliées, sans autre avis, ni délai. Vous ne pourrez plus alors fréquenter le parc national d’Oka .

Nous comptons sur votre collaboration et comprenons que vous agirez en conséquence.” [Emphasis added.] [ 16 ] On September 15, 2016, as a result of further violations of park regulations by Mr. Tavares, the park director wrote again to Mr. Tavares. This time, the letter advised him that his access privileges had been revoked and that, until further notice, he no longer had access to the park ( Revocation Letter [3] ). However, the revocation of access privileges was not necessarily permanent. Mr. Tavares would have to make a written request to the park management to have his access privileges reinstated.

The Revocation Letter also specified that a request to that effect would have to include a separate letter by Mr. Tavares undertaking that he would henceforth commit to follow and comply with the applicable park regulations. [ 17 ] The Revocation Letter reads as follows: “ Objet: Parc national d’Oka – Résiliation de votre carte annuelle Monsieur Tavares, La Société des établissements de plein air du Québec gère et exploite le parc national d’Oka. À ce titre, nous désirons vous informer que votre carte d’accès annuelle est désormais résiliée.

Depuis plus d’un an, nous constatons que vous persistez à ne pas respecter la réglementation du parc. Nous avons pris soin de vous faire part en détail des manquements reprochés dans le cadre de notre lettre du 16 juin 2016. Dans le cadre de cette même lettre, vous avez été formellement avisé qu’advenant toute autre contravention à la réglementation applicable au parc, votre carte annuelle et votre vignette de stationnement seront résiliées.

Le 11 septembre dernier, les gardes-parc ont encore une fois dû intervenir auprès de vous en raison de votre refus de respecter la réglementation applicable au parc national d’Oka. Au cours de cette intervention vous avez refusé de collaborer avec un assistant à la protection de la faune ce qui constitue une entrave à son travail en regard de la

Loi sur la conservation et la mise en valeur de la faune . Dans les circonstances, nous vous invitons à cesser dès maintenant de fréquenter le parc national d’Oka. Le privilège de fréquenter à nouveau le parc pourra vous être accordé par la direction du parc seulement suite à une demande écrite à partir du printemps 2017 et d’un engagement de votre part à respecter ce milieu et la réglementation applicable.

Nous comptons sur votre collaboration et comprenons que vous agirez en conséquence. ” [ 18 ] Instead of making a written request for reinstatement of his access privileges, including a written undertaking to comply with park regulations, Mr. Tavares obtained an access card under a false name. He then gained illegal or unauthorized access to the park under a pass obtained pursuant to a false declaration by him. [ 19 ] On March 5, 2017, Mr. Tavares was asked to leave the park and refused. The QPP were called and Mr. Tavares was forcibly removed and expelled from the park.

Claim against the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Solidarity of Quebec (MTESS) [ 20 ] Mr. Tavares also alleges that he has been wrongfully treated by the Ministère du travail, de l’emploi et de la solidarité sociale (“Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Solidarity” or MTESS). This is the Quebec government ministry charged with the administration and delivery of services and payments of social welfare in the province. Mr. Tavares’ judicial application does not refer to any specific fault alleged against the MTESS, beyond that of conspiracy with the other defendants to ruin his life. [ 21 ] In Mr.

Tavares’ demand letter [4] dated November 23, 2017, he alleges: “The MTESS did not help me from 2004 to 2011 with Social aid. They put me in poverty and at odds with my family who were also investigated. I had to empty my construction retirement and my son’s school pension.” [ 22 ] To the extent that Mr. Tavares’ judicial claim pertains to an alleged fault for non-payment of welfare that would have occurred between 2004 and 2011, such a claim is prescribed under

Article 2325 of the Civil Code of Quebec ( C.C.Q. ). [ 23 ] At the hearing, Mr. Tavares alleged that the MTESS continues to deduct part of his current welfare payments to pay a debt claimed by the government of Quebec, in particular the Quebec Revenue Agency. Mr. Tavares complains that an amount of $224 is deducted from his social welfare cheque each month. [ 24 ] The representative of MTESS, Sharell Dupras, stated that, according to their records, Mr. Tavares owes to the government of Quebec, as of April 25, 2019, an amount of approximately $31,000. [ 25 ] Apparently, the refusal to grant welfare payments to Mr.

Tavares in the past, as well as the legality of the deductions by MTESS, was contested by Mr. Tavares at the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec. Those contestations were not successful. As we will see in the next section, that body is another defendant before the Court. [ 26 ] Mr. Tavares did not submit to the Court any ground or evidence to support an allegation that the MTESS acted either in the past or at the current time in a way that could be considered illegal or that constituted a fault. Administrative Tribunal of Quebec (ATQ) [ 27 ] Mr.

Tavares’s judicial application does not contain any specific allegation of wrongful conduct on the part of the Quebec Administrative Tribunal. In his demand letter, Mr. Tavares writes: “The Quebec Administrative Tribunal colluded with the MTESS to try to put me on the street by making my non-court appearance three years later (2007). Lucky I had credit cards and loans from internet Pyramid schemes.” [ 28 ] The contestation filed by the ATQ sets out in detail the six (6) different applications to the ATQ made by Mr. Tavares between 2007 and 2017.

Six (6) administrative decisions were rendered [5] . [ 29 ] The ATQ states that Mr. Tavares’ judicial application to the present Court does not specify a fault on its part. The ATQ also states that, in any event, it has not committed any fault with regard to Mr. Tavares and that it and its members always acted in good faith, in regard to his various applications, by providing an impartial review process for his claims in accordance with the oath taken by each of its members [6] .

[ 30 ] The representative of ATQ, Jennifer Tutino, also pointed out the fact that, in five (5) of the six (6) requests for review that he made, Mr. Tavares failed to appear at the hearing, despite being duly notified thereof and convened thereto. [ 31 ] When asked about this, Mr. Tavares did not have a satisfactory answer. He stated that he had problems waking up and that the vehicular traffic often made him late. [ 32 ] The Court explained to Mr.

Tavares the importance of presenting himself on time for appearances for judicial and quasi-judicial hearings given the significant human and financial resources set aside during such hearings to review the complaint. [ 33 ] According to the documentation filed by the ATQ, one request of Mr. Tavares for administrative review is pending, namely an application for revision of the last decision rendered by default. [ 34 ] Lastly, the ATQ invokes that the tribunal [7] and its members exercising their quasi-judicial functions [8] benefit from a legislative immunity for all acts executed by them in good faith.

Quebec Revenue Agency (QRA) [ 35 ] Mr. Tavares’ judicial application does not refer to a specific fault on the part of the QRA. However, Mr. Tavares’s demand letter states: “Revenue Quebec made false tax notices to give me a debt and car. They seized my bank accounts while I was on Social Security that made my car insurance and landlord rent checks bounce to put me at odds with them.” [ 36 ] QRA filed a lengthy contestation of sixty (60) paragraphs over eleven (11) pages, including thirteen (13) exhibits, regarding Mr. Tavares’ claim against it. [ 37 ] In

summary, QRA states that: • it has always acted in good faith; • its various assessments issued regarding Mr. Tavares’ income benefit from a legal presumption of validity under

Article 1014 of the Taxation Act [9] ; • none of its assessments has even been properly challenged by Mr. Tavares, namely first by an opposition and then, if the result of such an opposition is unfavourable to the taxpayer, by way of appeal to the Court of Quebec; and • all bank seizures made by it were subsequent to notices, warnings and reminders to Mr. Tavares that were unanswered or ignored by him.

Analysis and Decision [ 38 ] Articles 2803, 2804 and 2805 C.C.Q. state: 2803. Celui qui veut faire valoir un droit doit prouver les faits qui soutiennent sa prétention. Celui qui prétend qu’un droit est nul, a été modifié ou est éteint doit prouver les faits sur lesquels sa prétention est fondée. 2803. A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based. A person who claims that a right is null, has been modified or is extinguished shall prove the facts on which he bases his claim. 2804.

La preuve qui rend l’existence d’un fait plus probable que son inexistence est suffisante, à moins que la loi n’exige une preuve plus convaincante. 2804. Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non- existence, unless the law requires more convincing proof. 2805. La bonne foi se présume toujours, à moins que la loi n’exige expressément de la prouver. 2805. Good faith is always presumed, unless the law expressly requires that it be proved. [ 39 ] Mr. Tavares alleges that each of the defendants has committed a fault against him.

In order to establish a fault, he must show that a defendant has violated

Article 1457 C.C.Q. which reads as follows: 1457. Toute personne a le devoir de respecter les règles de conduite qui, suivant les circonstances, les usages ou la loi, s’imposent à elle, de manière à ne pas causer de préjudice à autrui. Elle est, lorsqu’elle est douée de raison et qu’elle manque à ce devoir, responsable du préjudice qu’elle cause par cette faute à autrui et tenue de réparer ce préjudice, qu’il soit corporel, moral ou matériel.

Elle est aussi tenue, en certains cas, de réparer le préjudice causé à autrui par le fait ou la faute d’une autre personne ou par le fait des biens qu’elle a sous sa garde. 1457. Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another. Where he is endowed with reason and fails in this duty, he is liable for any injury he causes to another by such fault and is bound to make reparation for the injury, whether it be bodily, moral or material in nature.

He is also bound, in certain cases, to make reparation for injury caused to another by the act, omission or fault of another person or by the act of things in his custody. [ 40 ] In accordance with the previous mentioned articles, the burden of proof to establish the commission of a fault by any of the defendants rests on the shoulders of Mr. Tavares. The Tribunal will review the evidence and law with regard to each defendant. Claim against SEPAQ [ 41 ] SEPAQ administers various parks owned by the Province of Quebec as its mandatary [10] .

[ 42 ] The following legislations and regulations are relevant to Mr. Tavares’ claim against SEPAQ. [ 43 ] The following articles of the Parks Act [11] state: 6. Le ministre peut, dans un parc, autoriser ou effectuer tous travaux d’entretien, d’aménagement et d’immobilisation susceptibles de maintenir ou d’améliorer la qualité du parc. Il peut également, sous réserve des dispositions légales applicables, autoriser ou effectuer de tels travaux à l’extérieur d’un parc en autant qu’ils sont nécessaires aux opérations de celui-ci. 6.

The Minister may authorize or carry out any work of maintenance, development or construction in a park that may serve to maintain or improve the quality of the park. The Minister may also, subject to the applicable legislative provisions, authorize or carry out such work outside the boundaries of a park insofar as the work is necessary to the operations of the park. 6.1.

Toute personne qui accède, séjourne, circule ou pratique une activité dans un parc doit être titulaire , dans les cas déterminés par règlement, d’une autorisation délivrée à cette fin par le ministre ou la Société ou par la personne que le ministre ou la Société désigne. Cette autorisation est délivrée sur paiement des droits fixés dans ce règlement. 6.1.

Every person who enters a park or stays, travels or engages in an activity in a park must , in the cases determined by regulation, hold an authorization issued for that purpose by the Minister or the Société or a person designated by the Minister or the Société . The authorization shall be issued on payment of the fees fixed in the regulation. 8. Nul ne peut, dans un parc, effectuer d’autres travaux d’entretien, d’aménagement, d’immobilisation ou de modification des lieux sans obtenir au préalable l’autorisation du ministre prévue au premier alinéa de l’article 6. 8.

No person may do other maintenance, development or construction work in or make changes to the grounds of a park without prior authorization from the Minister pursuant to the first paragraph of

section 6. [Emphasis added.] [ 44 ] The following articles of the Parks Regulation [12] state:

Sous réserve des exemptions prévues à l’article 6, toute personne qui accède à un parc, qui y circule ou qui y pratique une activité doit être titulaire d’une autorisation d’accès délivrée en vertu de l’

article 6.1 de la

Loi sur les parcs (chapitre P-9 ). 5. Subject to the exemptions provided for in

section 6, any person who enters a park, travels or engages in an activity in a park shall hold an authorization to enter issued under

section 6.1 of the Parks Act (chapter P-9 ). 18. Toute personne qui circule, séjourne ou pratique une activité dans un parc doit se conformer à la liste des activités et des modes d’accès visée à l’article 14 de même qu’aux périodes et endroits qui y sont indiqués ainsi qu’à leur signalisation à moins qu’elle n’ait obtenu une autorisation du directeur d’un parc en vertu de l’article 15, auquel cas elle doit se conformer à cette autorisation. 18. Any person who travels, stays or engages in an activity in a park shall comply with the list of activities and means of admission referred to in

section 14 and with the periods and areas indicated thereon and on the signs unless he has obtained an authorization from the park superintendent under

section 15, in which case, the person shall comply with the authorization.

20. Il est interdit à toute personne qui circule, séjourne ou pratique une activité dans un parc , à des fins autres que scientifiques ou de gestion: (1) d’abattre , d’endommager , d’enlever ou d’introduire un arbre , un arbuste , une plante , un champignon ou

partie de ceux-ci; 20. No person who travels, stays or engages in an activity in a park for purposes other than scientific or management purposes may: (1) fell , damage , remove or bring in a tree , a shrub , a plant , a mushroom or a part thereof; 25. Toute personne qui contrevient à la

Loi sur les parcs (chapitre P-9 ), au présent règlement , à la

Loi sur la conservation et la mise en valeur de la faune (chapitre C-61.1 ) ou à la

Loi sur les pêches (L.R.C. 1985, c. F-14 ) peut être expulsée de tout ou

partie du parc où elle se trouve au moment de cette contravention; cette personne doit obtempérer à cet ordre d’expulsion sur-le- champ . 25. Every person who infringes the Parks Act (chapter P-9 ), this Regulation, the Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife (chapter C-61.1 ) or the Fisheries Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14 ) may be ejected from a park or from part of the park where that person is at the time of the infringement; that person shall obey that expulsion order immediately . [Emphasis added.] [ 45 ] The following

article of the Act respecting the Conservation and Development of Wildlife [13] states: 12. Nul ne peut donner sciemment de faux renseignements au ministre ou à la personne agissant pour lui, à un fonctionnaire visé à l’article 3, à un agent de protection de la faune, à un assistant à la protection de la faune ou à un gardien de territoire, lorsqu’ils sont dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions.

Nul ne peut entraver volontairement un agent de protection de la faune , un fonctionnaire visé à l’article 3, un assistant à la protection de la faune ou un gardien de territoire, lorsqu’ils sont dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions. 12. No person may knowingly give false information to the Minister or a person acting on behalf of the Minister, any officer referred to in

section 3, a wildlife protection officer, a wildlife protection assistant or an area warden acting in the discharge of his duties. No person may purposely hinder a wildlife protection officer , an officer referred to in

section 3, a wildlife protection assistant or an area warden acting in the discharge of his duties. [Emphasis added.] [ 46 ] In light of the legislative and regulatory provisions, Mr. Tavares was required to comply with the regulations determining acceptable conduct in the park, including not damaging, removing or modifying the state of the park. [ 47 ] He failed to do so, even after being warned repeatedly to cease such activities. In accordance with the provisions mentioned, any person infringing the applicable rules can be ejected from a park. Furthermore, Mr.

Tavares also violated the rules by not complying with the request of a wildlife protection assistant. [ 48 ] Mr. Tavares’ access privileges were thereafter temporarily revoked until he would undertake to comply with the applicable rules.

[ 49 ] Instead of doing so, Mr. Tavares obtained a pass to enter the park under a false identity. Pursuant to the above provisions, every person who enters a park must hold a valid authorization to gain access. The issuance of a pass under a false identity is not a valid authorization. [ 50 ] On March 5, 2017, Mr. Tavares did not have a valid authorization issued to him to be on the grounds of the park. Under

Article 25 of the Parks Regulation , the park officials were entitled to have him ejected from the park. Under the article, Mr. Tavares was required to obey that expulsion order immediately. He did not. [ 51 ] In the circumstances, without a valid pass, Mr. Tavares was trespassing on the grounds of the park. [ 52 ] The Court is of the view that Mr. Tavares has not established that SEPAQ or its representatives committed any fault under

Article 1457 C.C.Q. in calling the QPP to have him removed and to have the expulsion order enforced. Claim against Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Solidarity (MTESS) [ 53 ] Mr. Tavares’ claim of non-payment of welfare payments from 2004 to 2011 is prescribed under the three (3) year deadline stated at

Article 2925 C.C.Q. With regard to subsequent years, Mr. Tavares applied for review of the administrative decisions under the relevant legislation and his requests were denied. [ 54 ] There is no evidence of illegality or fault under

Article 1457 C.C.Q. on the part of the MTESS officials or employees. Claim against Administrative Tribunal of Quebec (ATQ) [ 55 ] Mr. Tavares has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the ATQ or its members acted wrongly or committed a fault with respect to him. [ 56 ] In most cases, Mr. Tavares did not even turn up to the hearing, despite being duly notified thereof and convened thereto. He only has himself to blame for his absence at the hearings. [ 57 ] Mr.

Tavares has an upcoming hearing before the ATQ and it is to be hoped that he will present himself at the appropriate time and place to present his position and version of events. [ 58 ] Mr. Tavares has not discharged his burden to prove that the ATQ has committed a fault under

Article 1457 C.C.Q. Claim against the Quebec Revenue Agency (QRA) [ 59 ] The various assessments of Mr. Tavares’ income made by the QRA were not contested by him. The representative of the QRA, Marie-France Beland, states that as Mr. Tavares did not file income tax returns over several years, QRA had no other choice but to estimate his income. The assessments made by QRA were not contested in accordance with the relevant procedure outlined and specified in writing in the notices of assessment.

[ 60 ] The testimony before the Court was that Mr. Tavares has corrected past omissions and is currently making efforts to be current in the filing of his tax returns. [ 61 ] As for the seizure made by the QRA, according to the evidence, the QRA only proceeded to the seizures after duly notifying Mr. Tavares that amounts were owed and after duly advising Mr. Tavares that he was in default to pay the amounts assessed. The QRA also notified Mr. Tavares that if he failed to rectify his default, it would proceed to make seizures. As Mr.

Tavares did not respond to the notices, QRA proceeded to effect the seizures. [ 62 ] It was Mr. Tavares’ burden to prove that the QRA had committed a fault as mandatary of the Minister of Revenue of Quebec in applying Quebec tax laws with respect to him. Mr. Tavares has not established that the QRA has committed a fault pursuant to

Article 1457 C.C.Q. Conspiracy of defendants to ruin Mr. Tavares’ life [ 63 ] Mr. Tavares alleges that the defendants have acted in concert and in pursuit of a radical feminist agenda to destroy his life. Mr. Tavares refers with particular sadness to previous Court orders that denied him the custody of his child. These were judgments rendered by the Superior Court of Quebec that have nothing to do with any of the defendants. Furthermore, as the Tribunal explained to Mr. Tavares, the present Court does not sit in review or appeal of those judgements. [ 64 ] According to the representatives of defendants, Mr.

Tavares’ gender is not relevant to them in the application of the laws which they are mandated to apply. In particular, they state that the laws have not been applied in a discriminatory manner based upon Mr. Tavares’ gender but rather in an impartial, neutral and uniform manner. Mr. Tavares has failed to show any discriminatory conduct on the part of defendants or that they have acted together in any illegal or wrongful way. Legal Costs [ 65 ] The representatives of SEPAQ and ATQ requested their legal costs if Mr. Tavares’ claims were dismissed.

The MTESS and QRA stated that they were prepared to waive their respective claims for legal costs in such event. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Ricardo Tavares’ Judicial Application;

CONDEMNS Ricardo Tavares to pay as legal costs (Court Stamp Fee): - $300 to the Société des établissements de plein air du Québec; - $300 to the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec. __________________________________ Jeffrey Edwards, J.C.Q. Ricardo Tavares For: himself Ms. Jennifer Tutino For: Administrative Tribunal of Quebec Ms. Sharell Dupras For: Ministère du Travail, de l’emploi et de la solidarité sociale Ms. Marie-Ève Brassard For: Société des établissements de plein air du Québec Ms. Marie-France Beland For: Quebec Revenue Agency Date of hearing: May 14, 2019