2011 QCCQ 11163, 2011 QCCQ 11163

Reich c. Charité et Associés 2011 QCCQ 11163 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-117063-091 DATE: August 11, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SUZANNE HANDMAN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ALAN REICH […], Montréal, Qc., […] Plaintiff v.

LA CHARITÉ ET ASSOCIÉS 3535, Chemin de la Reine Marie #415, Montréal, Qc., H3V 1H8 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Alan Reich is suing le Centre Communautaire juridique de Montréal (the “Centre”) for $5,000, alleging that it failed to respect the mandate he had given to his attorney. The Centre denies any liability. The evidence: [ 2 ] On July 1, 2007, the janitor of Mr. Reich’s residence attempted to force her way into his apartment to collect rent. Mr.

Reich tried to push the door shut and the janitor fell. [ 3 ] Both parties called the police. Mr. Reich wished to press charges against the janitor. His request was refused. He was told that the matter was a civil affair. [ 4 ] On July 9, 2007, Mr. Reich consulted Me. Marquis at the Centre to determine if the janitor had filed a complaint against him. If so, he would have hired a criminal lawyer and demanded that the janitor be charged. He claimed Me. Marquis told him that since he had not been arrested, he should forget about the incident. [ 5 ] Me. Marquis testified that Mr.

Reich consulted her regarding a Rental Board problem with respect to his janitor. During the consultation, Mr. Reich also wanted to know whether the janitor had pressed charges relating to their fight. Me. Marquis advised Mr. Reich she did not practice criminal law but she would attempt to obtain the information. [ 6 ] On August 6, 2007, Me. Marquis wrote to the police in this regard. On September 24, 2007, the police replied, stating that no report had been filed. [ 7 ] At the end of November 2007, a police detective advised Mr.

Reich that the janitor had filled out a declaration on July 2nd and he could possibly be charged. [ 8 ] Mr. Reich was upset. He returned to the Centre to determine what had happened. Me. Marquis contacted the detective and was told that the janitor had filled the complaint in November. However, no information is provided while the case is under inquiry, unless charges are laid.

[ 9 ] On December 19, 2007, Mr. Reich was charged with assault. He consulted a lawyer practicing criminal law. According to Mr. Reich, this attorney told him that he should have obtained the complimentary police report. [ 10 ] Mr. Reich was found guilty of assault in Municipal Court on October 7, 2009. The Superior Court in appeal overturned the decision on April 13, 2010. Mr. Reich incurred legal fees of $1,821.87. Analysis: [ 11 ] Mr. Reich is suing the Centre, alleging it failed to properly carry out its mandate. [ 12 ] According to Mr.

Reich, had the Centre handled his case with care, the complaint against him would not have proceeded. He also submits he should have obtained a copy of the police report. He is claiming $5,000 as damages for the Centre's failure to respect the mandate he had provided and for the stress and anxiety he had suffered. [ 13 ] The Court does not consider the action to be well founded. [ 14 ] Mr. Reich consulted the Centre with respect to a civil matter relating to his lodging.

The nature of the service is shown in the mandate, given to the Centre, as “Logement; Civil et administrative; mis en demeure/letter/avis”. [ 15 ] When Mr. Reich asked whether the janitor had filed a complaint against him following their fight, he was told by Me. Marquis, the attorney handling his case, that she did not practice criminal law but she would look into the matter for him. [ 16 ] In response to Me. Marquis' request for the police report related to Mr. Reich's fight, Me.

Cardinal, Head of Legal Affairs and responsible for access to information, advised the Centre on September 24, 2007 that no report had been filed by the police following the incident. [ 17 ] While the Centre did not have a mandate to deal with a criminal matter, it nevertheless obtained the information Mr. Reich sought. [ 18 ] The janitor had, in fact, filed a complaint either in July (according to Mr. Reich) or in November (according to Me. Marquis).

However, during an investigation and until charges are filed against a person, no police report is made public. [ 19 ] The Centre is not responsible for the fact that charges were subsequently laid against Mr. Reich. Irrespective of whether the janitor's complaint was filed in July or in November, when Me. Marquis asked about the status of Mr. Reich's file in August 2007, no police report was available since no charges had been laid, at that time. [ 20 ] Mr. Reich reproaches the Centre for having used the wrong file number when requesting information as to the status of his case. However, the file number Me.

Marquis used was the one inscribed on the card, which the police had given to Mr. Reich. [ 21 ] As for Mr. Reich's reproach against the Centre for failing to file a criminal complaint against the janitor, Mr. Reich could have consulted a lawyer who practiced criminal law; Me. Marquis did not handle criminal matters. Furthermore, she testified that Mr. Reich had never asked her to file a criminal complaint. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the action filed by Mr. Alan Reich. __________________________________ SUZANNE HANDMAN, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: July 5, 2011