2021 QCCQ 5687, 2021 QCCQ 5687

Turcot c. Charles 2021 QCCQ 5687 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-160880-193 DATE: July 9, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY JUDGE HENRI RICHARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Daniel Turcot Plaintiff v.

Elizabeth Charles Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] In support of his claim for $15,000 from Elizabeth Charles, Daniel Turcot alleges « - Unjustly imprisoned - Material and moral damages » [ 2 ] At his July 8, 2019 demand letter, under the heading "Settlement desired by the consumer" , Mr. Turcot writes: « 15000.00 in damages for false imprisonment, stress, loss of enjoyment of life, depression and broken vintage toys that you destroyed.

Rent, anxiety and being homeless for five months ». [ 3 ] In her contestation, Mrs. Charles denies Mr. Turcot's allegations and adds "He made a false claim that I assaulted him to hide the true facts” . [ 4 ] In civil law, the burden of proof is on Plaintiff’s shoulders in accordance with the principle provided for in

article 2803 of the Civil Code of Quebec ( 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 ] At the end of 2017, Mrs. Charles offers a room to Mr. Turcot in the apartment she occupies. [ 7 ] On December 16, 2017, a verbal and physical altercation occurs between Mrs. Charles and Mr. Turcot which leads to reciprocal statements to the police. [ 8 ] Following Mrs. Charles' statement, criminal charges are laid against Mr.

Turcot for assault and threats, which he is acquitted of in May 2019. [ 9 ] Mr. Turcot accused Mrs. Charles of having made a false statement that led to his temporary imprisonment and the laying of charges. He also alleges that Mrs. Charles broke some of his collectible toys. [ 10 ] In civil matters, it is not enough to allege damages; they must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. [ 11 ] Despite its careful consideration of this case, the Court finds no evidence to support Mr. Turcot's claim of $15,000 in damages. [ 12 ] Moreover, it is difficult for the Court to set aside the sincere testimony of Mrs.

Charles stating that she was the victim of assault and battery by Mr. Turcot. [ 13 ] It goes without saying that if the police and a criminal and penal prosecuting attorney lay charges against Mr. Turcot, it is because they had reasonable grounds to believe that criminal acts had been committed against Mrs. Charles. [ 14 ] The fact that Mr. Turcot is acquitted of the charges against him in relation to the facts arising out of Mrs. Charles' statement does not engage the civil liability of Mrs. Charles, unless evidence shows that she acted recklessly, negligently or with the sole purpose of causing harm to Mr.

Turcot. [ 15 ] The evidence presented does not support the conclusion that Mrs. Charles acted wrongfully towards Mr. Turcot. On the contrary, their tumultuous relationship as roommates demonstrates that mutual wrongs can be attributed to them.

[ 16 ] With respect to the breakage of Mr. Turcot's collector's toys, the Court cannot hold Mrs. Charles liable, since there is no preponderant evidence that would allow the Court to attribute any fault to her in this regard. [ 17 ] Moreover, Mr. Turcot presents no evidence of the value of the toys in question, allowing the Court to evaluate the alleged damages. [ 18 ] Furthermore, Mr. Turcot alleges that Mrs. Charles is responsible for his situation as a homeless person for a certain period of time. Once again, the Court finds no evidence that Mrs.

Charles was at fault in this regard. [ 19 ] 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. [ 20 ] As a result of the foregoing, the Court dismisses Mr. Turcot's application, but in the exercise of its judicial discretion, imposes no costs. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Daniel Turcot’s application against Elizabeth Charles, each party paying its own costs . Henri Richard, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: July 2, 2021