2021 QCCQ 5728, 2021 QCCQ 5728

Turcot c. Arcade Basile inc. (Basile Restaurant) 2021 QCCQ 5728 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-159378-183 DATE: July 9, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY JUDGE HENRI RICHARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DANIEL TURCOT Plaintiff v.

ARCADE Basile INC. (BASILE RESTAURANT) Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Daniel Turcot initially claimed from Arcade Basile Inc., operating a restaurant under the name "Basile Restaurant" ( Basile ), $15,000 which he reduced to $5,000 after a management conference, for which he alleged: « The accused invited the Plaintiff into the establishment proceeded to give Plaintiff code for Wi-Fi.

Pretended to make Plaintiff believe he was welcome then proceeded to call police to get him arrested on false charges. Plaintiff suffered anxiety, stress, depression, embarrassment » [ 2 ] In its defence, Basile contests Mr. Turcot's claim and denies having committed any fault whatsoever in his regard. Instead, his representatives deplored the fact that Mr. Turcot was undertaking a campaign of harassment against them. [ 3 ] Furthermore, Basile cross-claims $15,000 from Mr.

Turcot as a result of the abuse of procedure of which it is a victim and the resulting inconvenience, loss of time and costs. [ 4 ] In civil law, the burden of proof is on Plaintiff’s shoulders in accordance with the principle provided for in

article 2803 the Civil code of Québec ( C.C.Q. ) which states “A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based” . [ 5 ] The Court must weigh the probabilities pursuant to

article 2804 C.C.Q . which states “Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence” . In other words, the Court must establish what is more probable and likely. [ 6 ] In essence, Mr. Turcot blames Basile's representatives for calling the police to have him arrested on false charges. [ 7 ] The evidence shows otherwise. [ 8 ] Mr.

Turcot is a person known to Basile's representatives, as he has already telephoned their establishment to indicate that one of their employees would be the subject of an arrest warrant and that he would soon be questioned by the police. [ 9 ] Mr. George Papachronis, an employee of Basile, is adamant that it was Mr. Turcot who gave him this information on the phone. [ 10 ] The employee who was the subject of the alleged arrest warrant, Mr.

Manuel Riu Claro, testifies that he went to the police station to verify this information, which turned out to be unfounded, since there was no arrest warrant against him. [ 11 ] As a result of this unnecessary, even childish phone call, Mr. Turcot is not welcome at Basile's establishment. [ 12 ] A few months later, when he went to Basile's restaurant, one of its representatives called the police to ask him to leave the premises.

The evidence is not preponderant as to whether one of his representatives asked him to leave voluntarily. [ 13 ] In addition, the evidence is clear that Basile's representative did not call the police to have Mr. Turcot arrested, but rather to invite him to leave the premises, in order to avoid any discussion with him. [ 14 ] Accordingly, the Court concludes that Mr. Turcot does not discharge his burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, the commission of any wrongdoing on the part of a representative of Basile. On the contrary, Basile's representatives acted reasonably to make it clear to Mr.

Turcot that he was not welcome at their restaurant. [ 15 ] Moreover, even if the Court had found fault on the part of a representative of Basile, it would have dismissed Mr. Turcot's claim

since he presents no evidence to support the alleged damages suffered as a result of Basile's alleged fault. [ 16 ] Furthermore, the Court cannot grant Basile's cross-application since no evidence is presented in support of it. [ 17 ] Finally, the present case is one of a series of cases that the Court is hearing in which Mr. Turcot is the Plaintiff. In all of these cases, Mr. Turcot is claiming $15,000 from the defendants for "stress, anxiety, depression and embarrassment" and never establishes the actual damages suffered. Instead, he makes vague, unsubstantiated allegations about his damages.

The relevance of the judgment rendered on June 11, 2019 by Judge Céline Gervais, in Turcot v. Restaurants MH Inc. (Mc Donald's) [1] , which declares Mr. Turcot a querulous litigant. Unfortunately, this judgment does not have retroactive effect for this file and all the others that the Court hears during four days in the week of June 28, 2021.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Daniel Turcot’s application against Arcade Basile inc. (Basile Restaurant); DISMISSES the cross-application of Arcade Basile inc. (Basile Restaurant) against Daniel Turcot; THE WHOLE , each party paying its own costs. __________________________________ Henri Richard, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: June 29, 2021