2021 QCCQ 4090, 2021 QCCQ 4090

Aaron c. Gordon 2021 QCCQ 4090 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-157787-187 DATE: May 6, 2021 ________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ________________________________________________________________ ALBERT AARON Plaintiff v.

ROBERT GORDON Defendant _______________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ________________________________________________________________ [1] GIVEN the evidence, including the testimony of plaintiff and defendant; exhibits P-1 to P-14; the declaration of co-ownership of the Rothchild Condominiums Inc. (exhibit D-1); and the written solemn declaration of Rudy Giust; [2] GIVEN plaintiff’s lengthy and detailed statement of claim, which adeptly describes the situation and the contentious issues in this matter, and reads as follows: STATEMENT OF CLAIM PLAINTIFF RESPECTFULLY DECLARES: 1 .

Plaintiff and Defendant are both co-owners of exclusive portions (housing units and indoor parking spaces) in the residential condominium building known as Le Rothchild Phase II, located at 5850 Marc-Chagall, Cote Saint-Luc, QC (the “ Building ”). 2 . Plaintiff Albert Aaron (hereafter “Plaintiff or “Mr. Aaron”) together with his wife, Mona Aaron (“Mrs. Aaron”), are the registered co-owners of the exclusive residential unit known as Unit 306 and exclusive Parking Spaces B12 and B22 located in the Building. A copy of the evaluation roll for the exclusive portions co-owned by Mr.

Aaron and his wife are hereby communicated to Defendant as Exhibit P-1 en liasse . 3 . Mr. Aaron and his wife Mrs. Aaron have been co-owners of the Building since they purchased their exclusive portion (housing unit - Apt. 306) in July 1992. They purchased Parking Space B12 in August 1994. They have lived in the Building for over 25 years as at the present date. 4 . Mr. Aaron is presently 86 years old. 5 . Mr. Aaron is a past president and currently one of the administrators of the Syndicat des copropriétaires Le Rothchild Phase II (the “ Condo Association ”).

6 . At all pertinent times, Defendant Robert Gordon (hereafter “Defendant” or “ Mr. Gordon ”) together with his brother, Martin Gordon, are the registered co-owners of the exclusive residential unit known as Unit 701 and exclusive Parking Space B11 located in the Building. A copy of the evaluation roll for the exclusive portions co-owned by Mr. Gordon and his brother are hereby communicated to Defendant as Exhibit P-2 en liasse . 7 . Parking Space B11 (co-owned by Defendant) and Parking Space B12 (co-owned by Plaintiff) are adjacent underground parking spaces in the Building, separated by a parking stripe. 8 .

Plaintiff and Defendant are therefore adjacent property owners and immediate (contiguous) parking space neighbours. 9 . Defendant is the owner of a minivan (Grand Caravan, Quebec Licence Plate M87 GDY) (the “ Van ”)) that has been parked in Parking Space B11 and which has not been moved since at least January 1, 2014. 10 . Defendant owes obligations as a co-owner and a neighbour to Plaintiff under the Declaration of Co-Ownership dated October 28, 1988 and registered at the Montreal Registry Office under Reg.

No. 4086961, as amended (the “ Declaration of Co- Ownership ”), Rothchild Condominium Phase II - Condominium Rules and Regulations For Residents (Co-owners and Tenants), as amended (the “ Building Regulations ”), the Civil Code of Quebec and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms , regarding the manner in which Defendant conducts himself towards Plaintiff as a co- owner and a neighbour, as well the manner of use of his exclusive portion - specifically, Parking Space B11.

Extracts of the pertinent sections of the Building Regulations, dated as of April 2004 and as at July 2014, are hereby communicated to Defendant as Exhibit P-3 en liasse . 11 . Defendant is in default of his obligations towards Plaintiff and has acted in abuse of rights as regards Plaintiff. More specifically and as more fully set out below, Defendant has conducted a campaign to harass and cause harm to Plaintiff. 12 . Plaintiff through his attorneys, De Grandpré Chait (Me Virginia Lam), served a demand letter dated September 27, 2017 with enclosures, by email and bailiff on Defendant (the “ Demand Letter ”).

Copies of the Demand Letter and enclosures, with proof of bailiff service on Defendant, are hereby communicated to Defendant as Exhibit P-4 en liasse . 13 . The Demand Letter (Exhibit P-4) sets out the relevant facts of Plaintiff’s claim. For ease of reference, the substantive text of the Demand Letter is reproduced below: We are advised that you are actively engaged in the continued harassment of Mr. Aaron and making spurious statements about Mr. Aaron, including without limitation, the letter entitled “Time For Him To Step Down” calling for Mr.

Aaron’s forced removal from the condominium board (the “ Open Letter ’’, a copy of which is hereto attached as

Schedule A). Although the Open Letter is not signed, it has been determined that you are the author. Copies of the Open Letter have been posted by you without authorization all around the Building as well as a photo of Mr. Aaron’s car with text (the “ Van Notice-Original ” and the “ Van Notice-Supplemental ", collectively the “ Van Notices ”; copies of which are hereto attached as

Schedule

B) that you taped to the back window of your van as parked in your parking space with the front of the van facing the garage wall. Furthermore, you were seen today on September 27, 2017 removing the entire pile of The Suburban newspapers delivered to the Building lobby for condo residents, and returning same to the Building lobby with an insert of the Open Letter in each newspaper copy. As you know full well: ˗ Mr.

Aaron and you are condo unit co-owners and neighbours in the condominium building known as Le Rothchild Phase II, located at 5850 Marc-Chagall, Cote Saint-Luc, QC (the " Building ”). ˗ You owe obligations as a co-owner and a neighbour to Mr. Aaron under the Declaration of Co-Ownership dated October 28, 1988 and registered at the Montreal Registry Office under Reg.

No. 4086961, as amended (the " Declaration of Co-Ownership ”), Rothchild Condominium Phase II - Condominium Rules and Regulations For Residents (Co-owners and Tenants), as amended (the “ Building Regulations ”), the Civil Code of Quebec and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms . ˗ Mr.

Aaron is a past president and currently one of the administrators of the Syndicat des copropriétaires Le Rothchild Phase II (the “ Condo Association "). ˗ As a result of the Condo Association carrying out its powers and duties to ensure that you as a co-owner comply with the express provisions as well as the spirit of the Declaration of Co-Ownership and the Building Regulations, and to promote the respect of good neighbourly conduct between co-owners in matters concerning your use and occupation of Unit 701 and your parking spaces in the Building, relations have deteriorated between you and the Condo Association.

You have extended your animosity towards the Condo Association’s administrators, including Mr. Aaron, on a personal basis. ˗ You have however specifically targeted Mr. Aaron with continued abusive conduct and harassment. ˗ Mr. Aaron and his wife obtained a judgment rendered by Mr. Justice Daniel Dortélus of the Court of Quebec on January 13, 2017 (CQM 500-32-147998-159) (the " Dortélus Judgment ”) for abuse of rights by you against them and which condemned you to pay Mr. and Mrs. Aaron the amounts of $4,000 in moral damages and $1,000 in punitive damages.

You have escalated your harassment of Mr. Aaron in the past weeks, and for the sole purpose of causing harm to Mr. Aaron and impugning his good name and reputation amongst the community of the Building's co-owners and occupants, and the general public. In the Open Letter that you wrote and are posting illegally in the Building, you make false statements about Mr. Aaron to the public, including without limitation, all co-owners, occupants, visitors and Building staff who have seen theOpen Letter, to the effect that Mr.

Aaron “has not set a good example as a board member”, having “lost all credibility with the co-owners of the Rothchild II condominium", and demanding his resignation, by citing: (

a) Mr. Aaron’s use of his parking space for alleged “storage” (we refer to the car mats in your Van Notice) in contravention of the Building’s Rules and Regulations (Article 6B) and (

b) an alleged recording of Mr. Aaron “lying to the co-owners about having a nomination form in his envelope at the 2017 AGM meeting" held on July 19, 2017. First, the Van Notice-Original is utterly without context and intended to mislead any co- owner who should come across it in the parking area in order to give the false information about purported storage by Mr. Aaron in his parking space B22. Mr. Aaron’s name is not mentioned but the photo shows clearly identifies Mr. Aaron’s parking space B22.

You chose to ignore the simple fact that, when you took that photo, the car mats had just been washed and simply placed by Mr. Aaron flat on the ground of his parking space B22 in front of his car to dry out before being put back inside his car. Second, any alleged recording would have been made without Mr. Aaron’s knowledge. If such recording exists and it was made by you, you know it is illegal (given that you have already been reprimanded for the illegal recording of the Building doorman in the Dortélus Judgment).

In any event, the veracity of any alleged recording is denied, and in all probability, any remarks by Mr. Aaron would have been deliberately taken out of context by you. The Van Notice-Supplemental, although it does not mention Mr. Aaron’s name, is still directed at Mr. Aaron because of the photo of his parking space B22 number and repeats your unfounded accusation about Mr. Aaron having lied to co-owners (from your Open Letter). You keep posting the Open Letter everywhere in the Building without authorization.

You were told to stop this illegal posting by the Building management who has had to remove copies of the Open Letter upon finding them. You have also taken to inserting copies of the Open Letter into the Suburban newspaper that are delivered to the Building occupants To date, you have refused to do so. You want to circulate and keep public the Open Letter, and continue your campaign of harassment of Mr. Aaron.

It appears that the Court’s unequivocal determination in fact and law as set out in the Dortélus Judgment that your sustained and deliberate faulty conduct over your use of your parking space was abusive towards Mr. and Mrs. Aaron, and the award of punitive damages against you have not deterred you at all. You clearly want to flout the law. This continuation of your Personal attack of Mr. Aaron is an intentional violation of Mr. Aaron’s protected Charter rights to the safeguard of his Personal security, dignity, honour and reputation, and his right to peaceful enjoyment of his home in the Building. Mr.

Aaron is presently 85 years old. Your abusive and malicious conduct is causing serious prejudice to Mr. Aaron and affecting his health, physical and mental well-being. The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms provide the following fundamental rights: “1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. … 4. Every person has a right to the safeguard of his dignity, honour and reputation. … 6.

Every person has a right to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of his property, except to the extent provided by law.” The violation of these protected fundamental rights is sanctioned as follows: “49. Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom.

In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the tribunal may, in addition, condemn the person guilty of it to punitive damages.” Pertinent provisions of the Building Regulations: “16.0 GOODWILL 16.1 The security and peaceful environment of this condo depends on the will and determination of each resident (owner or tenant) to observe and enforce these rules. 16.2 Each resident's goodwill and desire for mutual recognition and appreciation of his/her rights and responsibilities create the intangible ambiance for a quality lifestyle.

16.3 FINAL NOTE Rules and their observance create the condition of a civilized society and community. Your directors trust you will enable everyone to enjoy a high standard of residency.” You are hereby put on notice to immediately cease your conduct of harassment and intentional any and all defamatory acts as regards Mr. Aaron, including without limitation, the immediate removal and cessation of any further publication of the Open Letter and the Van Notices. In addition, Mr.

Aaron is entitled to damages of not less than $15,000.00 for moral and punitive damages from you for the intentional violation of his rights and the harm suffered as a result of your harassment and abusive conduct. 14 . Attached as Exhibit P-5 and hereby communicated to Defendant, is a copy of the Open Letter referred to in the Demand Letter (Exhibit P-4). 15 .

Attached as Exhibit P-6 en liasse and hereby communicated to Defendant are copies of photos of the Open Letter and the Van Notices taped to Defendant’s van that is for all intents and purposes permanently parked in Parking Space B-11, which photos were taken by Mr. Aaron during the weeks of August and September 2017. 16 . The witness to Defendant’s actions involving the Suburban newspaper copies and insertion of the Open Letter (Exhibit P-5) on September 27, 2017 (as indicated at page 3 of the Demand Letter (Exhibit P-4)) was Rudy Giust, a doorman at Le Rothchild Condominiums Phase II. As part of his job, Mr.

Giust reported this incident to the Condo Association (which members include Plaintiff). This is how Plaintiff is able to have independent confirmation that Defendant is connected to the Open Letter (Exhibit P-5). Attached as Exhibit P-7 and hereby communicated to Defendant is a copy of the sworn declaration dated September 27, 2017 of Rudy Giust. Additional Backqround 17 . During Mr.

Aaron’s term as president as well as an administrator of the Condo Association, and over the years, the Condo Association has been and continues to be obliged to send formal notices (by the Condo Association, the Property Manager and the Condo Association’s lawyers) to Robert Gordon as the co-owner-occupant of Apt. 701, for his contravention of various provisions of the Declaration of Co-Ownership and the Building Regulations. Moreover, the Condo Association has had to take legal action against Robert Gordon before the courts (CSM 500-17-065210-117). 18 .

As a result of the Condo Association carrying out its powers and duties to ensure that co-owners comply with the express provisions as well as the spirit of the Declaration of Co-Ownership and the Building Regulations (see without limitation, pp. 36-43 of the Declaration of Co-Ownership), and to promote the respect of good neighbourly conduct between co-owners in matters concerning his use and occupation of Apt. 701 and his co-owned parking spaces in the Building, relations have deteriorated between Mr. Gordon and the Condo Association, and Mr.

Gordon has extended his animosity towards the Condo Association’s administrators on a personal basis. Harassment and Abuse of Rights 19 . Since 2013, Defendant has deliberately singled out Mr. Aaron, and by extension, Mrs. Aaron, for an abuse of his rights as a neighbouring parking space owner. 20 . Previous Acts of Harassment - More particularly, Defendant parked his Van at a severe angle in his Parking Space B11 for the deliberate and sole purpose of causing serious trouble and inconvenience to Plaintiff and with the objective of frustrating the normal use and peaceful enjoyment of Mr.

Aaron’s Parking Space B12,because of Mr. Aaron’s role in the Condo Association’s legal disputes with Mr. Gordon. Defendant’s illegal conduct was sanctioned judgment rendered by Hon. Daniel Dortélus, JCQ, on January 13, 2017, in the court record no. CQM 500-32-147998-159 (the “Dortélus Judgment”) and Mr. Gordon was condemned to pay $5,000 to Mr. Aaron and his wife. The relevant extracts and conclusions of the Dortélus Judgment are reproduced below: [50] Il est en preuve que pour corriger la situation, M. R.

Gordon n’a eu qu’à déplacer le véhicule d’environ de 6 po, suite à la mise en demeure du syndicat en septembre 2015, qui s'apprêtait à appliquer la déclaration de copropriété amendée. [51] Le Tribunal retient que laisser la fourgonnette stationnée durant plus d’un an à seulement 6 po de la ligne séparatrice de l’espace de stationnement des demandeurs constituait des inconvénients anormaux, ce même si aucune faute n’a été commise.

Pourtant, il existait une espace de plusieurs pieds de l'autre côté du véhicule et qu'en général les copropriétaires ne stationnent pas leur véhicule à distance de 6 po de la ligne séparant leur espace de stationnement dans le garage intérieur sous-terrain. [52] Faut-il rappeler qu’abuser de son droit de propriété, c'est l’exercer de manière à nuire à autrui ou d’une manière excessive et déraisonnable allant à l’encontre des exigences de la bonne foi, c’est ce que les défendeurs ont fait durant plus d’un an, avec insouciance et intransigeance. [53] Le Tribunal conclu que les critères sont rencontrés pour engager la responsabilité des défendeurs envers les demandeurs.

[54] Il reste maintenant à déterminer le montant des dommages à accorder aux demandeurs. Dommages pour troubles et inconvénients [55] Il ressort de la preuve que les demandeurs, des octogénaires, ont eu à subir sur une longue période des inconvénients pour accéder et sortir de leur espace de stationnement à cause de l’intransigeance de M. R. Gordon.

Il en a résulté une certaine perte de jouissance paisible de leur espace de stationnement et surtout des inconvénients qui auraient pu facilement être évités. [56] En regard de la trame factuelle dont il dispose, en tenant entre autres compte de la nature des inconvénients qui ont été récurrents et occasionnés des préjudices sur une durée de plus d’un an, le Tribunal estime raisonnable d’arbitrer à 4 000 $ le montant à accorder aux demandeurs à

titre de dommages moraux pour troubles et inconvénients. Dommages punitifs [57] Les dispositions pertinentes de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne (« la Charte ») applicables en l'espèce sont les suivantes : « 6. Toute personne a droit à la jouissance paisible et à la libre disposition de ses biens, sauf dans la mesure prévue par la loi. [...] 49. Une atteinte illicite à un droit ou à une liberté reconnue par la présente Charte confère à la victime le droit d’obtenir la cessation de cette atteinte et la réparation du préjudice moral ou matériel qui en résulte.

En cas d'atteinte illicite et intentionnelle, le tribunal peut en outre condamner son auteur à des dommages-intérêts punitifs. » [58] Les principes pour l'octroi de dommages punitifs sont bien établis par la jurisprudence. Dans l’arrêt Métromédia CMR Montréal inc. c. Johnson , la Cour d’appel enseigne : « [108] La fonction préventive des dommages punitifs est fondamentale; ils visent un double objectif de punition et dissuasion mais ne peuvent excéder ce qui est suffisant pour atteindre ces objectifs. [...] « c'est […] vers l'avenir que le juge doit se tourner pour chiffrer un montant qui empêchera la récidive ».

Il ne s'agit pas d'indemniser le demandeur mais de punir le défendeur comme il le mérite, de le décourager, lui et d'autres, d'agir ainsi à l'avenir et d'exprimer la réprobation de tous à l'égard de tels événements. » (Soulignements ajoutés) [59] Selon la Cour suprême, dans l’arrêt de Montigny c. Brossard (Succession) : « [47] Contrairement aux dommages compensatoires, dont la raison d’être est la réparation du préjudice résultant d'une faute, les dommages exemplaires existent, quant à eux, pour une autre fin.

L'octroi de ces dommages a pour but de marquer la désapprobation particulière dont la conduite visée fait l’objet. Il est rattaché à l'appréciation judiciaire d'une conduite, non à la mesure des indemnités destinées à réparer un préjudice réel, pécuniaire ou non . […] » (Soulignements ajoutés) [60] La preuve présentée démontre de manière prépondérante l'existence de violation du droit garanti par l'

article 6 de la Charte . De plus, en ce qui concerne le défendeur Robert Gordon, il y a preuve suffisante d’ atteinte illicite et intentionnelle de ce droit garanti par la Charte qui est d'ordre public. En conséquence, la responsabilité du défendeur Robert Gordon est engagée pour l'octroi des dommages exemplaires en vertu de l'

article 49 de la Charte , que le Tribunal arbitre à 1 000 S. [62] POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL : [63] ACCUEILLE partiellement la demande; [64] CONDAMNE les défendeurs à payer aux demandeurs à

titre de dommages moraux, la somme de 4 000 $ avec intérêt au taux légal, plus l’indemnité additionnelle prévue à l’

article 1619 du Code civil du Québec à compter de la date de la mise en demeure du 18 juin 2015, plus les frais de justice de 206 $; [65] CONDAMNE le défendeur Robert Gordon à payer aux demandeurs à

titre de dommages punitifs, la somme de 1 000 $, avec intérêt au taux légal, plus l’indemnité additionnelle prévue à l’

article 1619 du Code civil du Québec à compter de la date du jugement. Attached as Exhibit P-8 and hereby communicated to Defendant is a copy of the Dortélus Judgment. 21 . New Acts of Harassment - Plaintiff’s present claim for damages is for NEW acts of harassment, and illegal and bad faith conduct by Defendant towards Plaintiff, that are subsequent to the Dortélus Judgment. 22 . By taping the Open Letter and the Van Notice to the Van where they are seen by any person who passes that

section of the Building parking lot, Defendant is using his Van in his Parking Space B11 as a means to harass Plaintiff and publicize insults about Plaintiff. 23 . Defendant has taped this to the Van so that Plaintiff and his wife will always be exposed to and see Defendant’s insults whenever Plaintiff and his wife use their Parking Space B-12 . Violation of the Declaration of Co-ownership, the Building Regulations, the Civil Code of Quebec and the Quebec Charter of Human Riqhts and Freedoms

24 . As a co-owner of Parking Space B11, Defendant has the right to park a car in his parking space. 25 . However, and as described above, Defendant has exercise his right to park in Parking Space B11 in bad faith and in a manner to cause deliberate prejudice to his neighbouring parking space co-owners, being Plaintiff as the co-owner of Parking Space B12. 26 .

Defendants as a co-owner is obliged to exercise his rights in good faith and have undertaken to respect the limits and code of conduct binding upon co-owners of the Building as set out in the Civil Code of Quebec , the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms , the Declaration of Co-Ownership and the Building Regulations. However, Defendant has refused to respect these obligations even after Plaintiff’s formal notice by the Demand Letter. 27 . More particularly:

a) the Civil Code of Quebec provides at: “Art. 6: Every person is bound to exercise his civil rights in good faith.” “Art. 7: No right may be exercised with the intent of injuring another or in an excessive and unreasonable manner, and therefore contrary to the requirements of good faith." “Art. 1054: The by-laws of an immovable contain the rules on the enjoyment, use and upkeep of the private and common portions, and those on the operation and administration of the co-ownership.” “Art. 1063: Each co-owner has the disposal of his fraction; he has free use and enjoyment of his private portion and of the common portions, provided he complies with the by- laws of the immovable and does not impair the rights of the other co- owners or the destination of the immovable.” “Art. 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 or fault of another person or by the act of things in his custody.” “Art. 1458: Every person has a duty to honour his contractual undertakings.

Where he fails in this duty, he is liable for any bodily, moral or material injury he causes to the other contracting party and is bound to make reparation for the injury; neither he nor the other party may in such a case avoid the rules governing contractual liability by opting for rules that would be more favourable to them.”

b) the pertinent provisions of the Building Regulations are reproduced below: “0.0

PREAMBLE 0.1 Declaration of Co-Ownership It is the duty and obligation of each co-owner to become familiar with the terms and conditions of the Declaration of Co-Ownership pursuant to which these regulations have been adopted. 0.2 These Rules and Regulations supplement those contained in the Declaration of Co-Ownership ... and the laws as set out in the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec. 0.3 In developing these Rules and Regulations, it was the intent to avoid undue restrictions. However, it must be recognized that the actions and behaviour of each resident have an impact on his neighbours.

The use of the apartments and common portion and limited portion facilities must not unreasonably disturb or conflict with the rights of others. 0.4 The extent of our adherence of these rules and regulations as well as the consideration, courtesy and respect we extend to each other as neighbours, will permit the maximum enjoyment of our homes and may well determine the desirability Le Rothchild Condominium Phase II as a place of residence. On the other hand, failure to do so can only serve to the detriment of all. ... …

16.0 GOODWILL 16.1 The security and peaceful environment of this condo depends on the will and determination of each resident (owner or tenant) to observe and enforce these rules. 16.2 Each resident’s goodwill and desire for mutual recognition and appreciation of his/her rights and responsibilities create the intangible ambiance for a quality lifestyle. 16.3 FINAL NOTE Rules and their observance create the condition of a civilized society and community. Your directors trust you will enable everyone to enjoy a high standard of residency.” 28 .

Plaintiff is entitled to the following fundamental rights under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms , namely: “1. Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom. … 6. Every person has a right to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of his property, except to the extent provided by law.” 29 . Defendant’s conduct as above described constitutes a violation of Plaintiff’s protected fundamental rights and Plaintiff is entitled to ask that Defendant be sanctioned under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms , as follows: “49.

Any unlawful interference with any right or freedom recognized by this Charter entitles the victim to obtain the cessation of such interference and compensation for the moral or material prejudice resulting therefrom. In case of unlawful and intentional interference, the tribunal may, in addition, condemn the person guilty of it to punitive damages." 30 .

The Civil Code of Quebec provides that: “Art. 947: Ownership is the right to use, enjoy and dispose of property fully and freely, subject to the limits and conditions for doing so determined by law.” “Art. 976: Neighbours shall suffer the normal neighbourhood annoyances that are not beyond the limit of tolerance they owe each other, according to the nature or location of their land or local custom.” 31 . The insults directed at Plaintiff in the notices taped by Defendant to his Van parked in Parking Space B11 is not a normal nor acceptable use and clearly beyond normal neighbourhood annoyance. 32 .

Plaintiff cannot enjoy his home environment (being the Housing Unit 306 and the Exclusive Parking Space B12) because of the aggravation from having to deal with Defendant’s distribution of the Open Letter and the notices taped to Defendant’s Van. 33 . It is clear from the facts set out herein that Defendant is acting with malice to cause harm to Plaintiff. It illustrates:

a) Defendant’s total and intentional disregard for reasonable conduct as expected from neighbouring owners - and more especially, from co-owners in a residential condominium building; and

b) a deliberate course of action by Defendant as a co-owner of Parking Space B11 to cause serious prejudice to Plaintiff who he knows to be the neighbouring co- owner of Parking Space B12 and a long-serving administrator and past president of the Condo Association. 34 .

The Van with the taped notices is in effect being used by Defendant as a new form of continued harassment and intimidation being directed at Plaintiff to deprive him and his wife of their right to peaceful enjoyment and normal use of their property - Parking Space B12 - which is protected by the Civil Code of Quebec and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedom, and the whole in flagrant violation of the obligations of a co-owner under the Declaration of Co-Ownership and the Building Regulations. 35 .

To date, Defendant has refused to remove the taped notices from the Van despite receiving written demands from Plaintiff and the Condo Association. Attached as Exhibit P-9 and hereby communicated to Defendant are photos of Defendant’s Van with the taped notices as parked in Parking Space B11, taken by Plaintiff during the month of October 2017 and most recently on February 13. 2018. 36 .

Defendant’s abusive use of Parking Space B11 by parking the Van taped with the notices and his refusal to remove the taped notices constitutes a fault that commenced since they were taped in the summer months of 2017 and which continues to the present date . 37 . Such illegal conduct renders Defendant as a co-owner, neighbour and individual, liable, both contractually and extra- contractually, for damages to Plaintiff. Damages 38 .

Plaintiff is entitled to claim damages in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) from Defendant for harassment and the loss of normal and full use and peaceful enjoyment of Plaintiff’s home (which comprises the Housing Unit 306 and Parking Space B12), damages and inconvenience, as well as for moral and punitive damages for the intentional violation of Plaintiffs’ rights and the harm suffered as a result of Defendant’s abusive behaviour and abuse of rights generally, with interest and the legal indemnity of Art.

1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec as of the date of the present action, as follows:

a) loss of use and peaceful enjoyment of Unit 306 and Parking Space B12, damages and inconveniences: $ 8,000.00

b) moral damages: $ 3,500.00

c) punitive damages: $ 3,500.00 $ 15,000.00 39 . Plaintiff asks that this Honourable Court to:

a) maintain the action as well founded in facts and in law;

b) condemn Defendant to pay Plaintiff an amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) , with interest and the legal indemnity of Art. 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec as of the date of service of the present action; and

c) the whole with costs against Defendant . THE WHOLE RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Signed at Montreal, Quebec, this 14 th day of February 2018. (sig.) Albert AARON Plaintiff [3] WHEREAS plaintiff, who is a 90-year-old gentleman, testified in a most credible and convincing manner, and proved all of the facts alleged in his claim, according to the preponderance of evidence (arts. 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Quebec ); [4] GIVEN defendant’s childish, abusive, malicious, harmful and incorrigible behaviour, as above-described and proved; [5] GIVEN arts. 1, 6 and 49 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights And Freedoms ; [6] GIVEN arts. 6, 7, 947, 976, 1054, 1375, 1457 and 1458 C.C.Q .; [7] GIVEN the

preamble and art. 16 of the declaration of co-ownership of Le Rothchild Condominiums Inc.; [8] WHEREAS defendant failed to abide by the above laws and regulations; [9] WHEREAS , furthermore, despite the judgment rendered by the honourable Daniel Dortélus, on January 13, 2017, [1] wherein the Court found defendant liable, due to his abusive and illegal behaviour, defendant continued to act in the same manner, thereby causing plaintiff harm and damage as above described and proved; [10] WHEREAS defendant’s testimony was fraught with nonsense (“The judgment (Dortélus J.C.Q.) was biased and unfair.”; “I did not break the rules.”; “What I did was not against the condo rules.”; “I never had a problem with anybody.”); [11] WHEREAS defendant was not a credible witness, in that he claims he “never had a problem with anybody”, but wrote this, in his email dated July 14, 2016; Lenny I appreciate you writing back.

I see that you understand. The reason why I do not want to be on the board is simple. I am a very principled and moral person as I feel that you are. I would bet you a million $ if I did submit my name they would force someone else to run so I could not be acclaimed! They stuck a knife into Mish Granik's back to get him off the board because he was not a yes man. And replaced him with that sourpuss Jack Shaikovitch. But I would puke if I had to sit beside these morally bankrupt and corrupt people who are so drunk with the power that they would sell out their mother to keep the job. As per the motion for my vote.

I could see this happening in Syria, Russia, or Iran where they could present a motion to put down a motion like last night. This is sick! A democracy does not work like this but these guys are allowed to get away with it. As I told you there is a long list of these schmucks breaking and not respecting their own rules! I realize that it will never change in the building. I understand that you have to stick up for who ever butters your bread. Luckly I do not. Mrs Aaron's comment to me last night of " why don't you sell your condo real cheap" they would like that to happen. I walk with my head up in this building.

When the elevator door opens and Mr. Aaron sees that I am on the elevator he turns around and does he does not enter. The other guys will come on but with their heads down looking at the floor. I suspect that they might have an inkling that they are embarrassed for their unfair and heavy handed way they conduct themselves as board members. I am very happy living here and I plan to stay a long time probably until most of these guys have passed on to a better place. I will be there at their funerals in the front row just to make sure that they are really gone. Have a good summer.

I look forward to seeing you at next years AGM where I am sure it will also be the same crap.

(email, exhibit P-13); and, in the past, sued the Syndicate for stress, harassment, inconveniences, moral damages and punitive damages, and lost; [2] [12] WHEREAS the Court finds in favour of plaintiff and awards him the entire amount as claimed, attributed as follows: the aggregate amount of $10,000.00, for the extreme stress; the trouble and inconvenience; the loss of the peaceful enjoyment of his property; and the moral damages sustained, as a direct result of defendant’s persistently abusive and intentionally malicious and egregious behaviour and actions ( inter alia , pictures, exhibits P-6 and P-9), described in detail above, and proved according to a preponderance of evidence, as well as an amount of $5,000.00, for punitive damages, given defendant’s sustained bad faith, omissions and incorrigible behaviour (evidence of this spans over many years: demand letter, dated November 16, 2012, exhibit P-14; defendant’s email, dated July 14, 2016, containing abusive and heinous language, exhibit P-13; demand letter, dated September 8, 2017, exhibit P- 11; demand letter, dated September 27, 2017, exhibit P-4; demand letter, dated October 6, 2017, exhibit P-11; note and pictures relating to incident of November 29, 2017, exhibit P-12); [13] WHEREAS the Court wishes to underline that the amount awarded does not include reparation for the alleged defamation (art. 537 Code of Civil Procedure ); [14] WHEREAS plaintiff proved all of the facts alleged in his claim, according to the preponderance of evidence; [15] WHEREAS defendant’s contestation is baseless and without merit; [16] WHEREAS , on September 18, 2020, judge Emmanuelle Saucier ordered defendant to provide the addresses of his 2 named witnesses and to file his exhibits, by October 5, 2020, that which he failed to do; in fact, defendant presented no witnesses at trial, and filed but one exhibit, comprised of two pictures, to support his contestation; WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: GRANTS plaintiff's claim; CONDEMNS defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of $15,000.00, plus interest at the legal annual rate and the additional indemnity provided for in

section 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec , from February 19, 2018, and legal costs in the amount of $202.00. _______________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: March 16, 2021