2014 QCCQ 9048, 2014 QCCQ 9048

Kuric c. Westcliff Management Ltd. 2014 QCCQ 9048 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-126736-117 DATE: September 26, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ZLATCO J. KURIC […] Montreal, Quebec […] Plaintiff v.

WESTCLIFF MANAGEMENT LTD. 8515 Devonshire Place # 201 Mount Royal, Quebec H4P 2K1 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT on PLAINTIFF'S MOTION to RECUSE (article 234 C.C.P.) and MOTION to POSTONE ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] WHEREAS, on September 22, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion proposing recusation against the undersigned judge, who was designated to preside over the court in this matter; [ 2 ] WHEREAS , in his motion, plaintiff states the following: "SCC – File No 500-32-113957-080 Judge Eliana Marengo's judgement of above file.

Mr. Eric Peloquin's garage business Speedy Muffler was disenfranchised 4-5 years ago and now he operates under its new name "514- Muffler" (514-683-3537) at the same address and his garage is being now renovated. The judge E. Marengo walked into the courtroom with the judgement written on her face. Her further behaviour and the tone of her voice confirmed my apprehension, and this is the reason I will never allow her to preside over my court hearings. Conclusion: She treated me like a dishonest plaintiff but the man whose garage was firebombed was treated with full respect, total attention & sympathy.

She was instructed to destroy my claim for some disimbursement and now she wanted it to do the same for a second time, since I am an easy going victim. This was not a pure coincidence but rather an outright planned prearrangement. It all started with that absurd judgement by default rendered by SCC special clerk Mario Toupin for my very serious bodily injury.

SCC-file no. 500-32-103188-076 January 2008." (sic); [ 3 ] WHEREAS plaintiff's allegations are purely subjective, and basically constitute a rehashing of another case wherein plaintiff sued a third party and lost, and wherein the undersigned presided over the Court and rendered a judgment dismissing plaintiff's action on June 4, 2010 ( Zlatko Kuric v. 9145-3795 Quebec Inc., 2010 QCCQ 4905 ); [ 4 ] GIVEN the following principles : «Le fait pour le Juge Guthrie d’avoir rendu un certain nombre de décisions que n'accepte pas le demandeur ne justifie pas celui-ci de recourir à la récusation pour qu’on lui désigne un autre juge pour décider les autres problèmes qui subsistent dans le présent dossier.

La requête en récusation ne doit pas servir de substitut à l’appel qui demeure toujours le remède utile pour se plaindre des décisions d’un juge. Au surplus, comme le juge Guthrie a toujours agi dans le présent dossier comme juge et non pas comme arbitre, l’article 234

paragraphe 3 c.pc., ne s’applique pas. Un juge peut rendre plusieurs décisions dans un dossier sans que pour autant ces décisions constituent par la suite un motif de récusation. La gestion d’un dossier par un juge chargé d’entendre toutes les procédures incidentes ne serait pas possible s’il fallait récuser ce juge chaque fois qu’une de ses décisions ne plaît pas à une partie.

C’est pourquoi l’appel reste le seul moyen de se plaindre des décisions d’un juge, tandis que la procédure de récusation repose sur les principes énoncés dans les autorités susdites. »; [1] [ 5 ] WHEREAS, moreover, the fact that the undersigned rendered a judgment dismissing plaintiff's action in another case, does not constitute valid grounds for recusation herein; [ 6 ] WHEREAS , furthermore, plaintiff has not shown that there is mortal enmity between the undersigned judge and himself, nor proved that there is any other reasonable cause to fear that the undersigned judge will not be impartial in the present matter (arts. 234 ff of the Code of Civil Procedure ); [ 7 ] WHEREAS a motion for recusation is a very serious proceeding which calls into question the integrity of a judge and the administration of justice; [ 8 ] WHEREAS , therefore, a party seeking recusation has the burden of providing clear and convincing evidence and arguments in support thereof, that which plaintiff failed to do [2] ; [ 9 ] WHEREAS purely subjective and unfounded recriminations do not constitute sufficient cause; [ 10 ] GIVEN the absence of grounds of recusation to which the undersigned judge is liable; [ 11 ] WHEREAS the undersigned judge shall remain seized of the case, and advise the Honourable Louise Comeau, Associate coordinating judge, accordingly; [ 12 ] WHEREAS , lastly, plaintiff has not presented either reasonable or sufficient grounds to postpone the hearing of his application, which hearing has been pending for almost four years and is scheduled for October 6, 2014; WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiff's motions for recusation and for postponement, costs to follow suit; ORDERS that the hearing be held, as instructed, on October 6, 2014 at 9 a.m., in room 13.01, before the undersigned judge. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q.