2016 QCCA 1445, 2016 QCCA 1445

Forgac c. Bombardier inc. 2016 QCCA 1445 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-026249-169 (500-17-092675-167) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: September 2, 2016 THE HONOURABLE ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A. PETITIONER COUNSEL PAVOL FORGAC SELF-REPRESENTED Absent RESPONDENT COUNSEL BOMBARDIER INC. Mtre Claudia desjardins-bélisle ( Miller Thomson SENCRL / LLP ) Present DESCRIPTION: Application for leave to appeal from a judgment rendered in the course of the proceeding on July 6, 2016 by David R. Collier of the Superior Court, District of Montreal. Motion to amend application for leave and notice of appeal . Clerk: Annabel David Courtroom: RC-18

HEARING 9 : 30 The parties were instructed that the judgement will be sent to them by email but Me Desjardins-Bélisle was present. Annabel David Clerk BY THE JUDGE JUDGMENT [ 1 ] Mr. Forgac has sued Bombardier Inc. (“Bombardier”) alleging wrongful dismissal and claiming compensatory, moral and punitive damages amounting to approximately $464,000. Pursuant to various motions submitted by both parties within the context of these proceedings, on July 6, 2016 the Honourable David R. Collier of the Superior Court : a. ordered Mr.

Forgac to pay Bombardier $5,000 as compensation for unnecessary legal costs incurred as a result of his failure to abide by the case protocol, his numerous, lengthy and deficient motions and his failures to appear in court on certain occasions; b. ordered Mr. Forgac to provide a suretyship for costs pursuant to

article 492 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the amount of $10,000 to be deposited within 30 days so as to be held in trust by the attorneys representing Bombardier pending the resolution of the case. c. dismissed Mr. Forgac’s motion in revocation of judgment and “Amended Application for Sanctions for Abuse of Procedure” d. ordered various case management measures. [ 2 ] Through an application dated July 26, 2016, Mr. Forgac seeks leave to appeal this judgment on various grounds. Through a separate application dated August 26, 2016, he also seeks to append additional grounds to his leave application.

Both applications shall be dismissed with legal costs. [ 3 ] Mr. Forgac, who claims being domiciled in Thailand but who is presently residing in Slovakia, insists on prosecuting his case from outside Canada without the assistance of legal counsel. He may well attempt to do so, but he must nevertheless continue to abide by the applicable rules of civil procedure. [ 4 ] One of these rules is that a plaintiff who is not resident of Quebec may be required to provide a suretyship as security for the legal costs the court could award the plaintiff. Mr. Forgac is suing Bombardier for approximately $464,000.

In such circumstances, a suretyship of $10,000 is not out of order or exaggerated. [ 5 ] Mr. Forgac submits that the amount of $10,000 was established without inquiry into his financial situation. Yet, he submitted no

financial information to the Superior Court nor has he provided any additional information about his financial situation to this Court in support of his application. [ 6 ] Another rule is that a party to a proceeding who abuses the legal process may be called upon to cover the professional fees and disbursements incurred by the other party as a result. The Honourable Collier found that such abuse had been committed by the plaintiff and ordered him to pay $5,000 as compensation.

It is worthwhile to reproduce here part of the reasons given by Justice Collier: [8] Mr Forgac's revoked his first lawyer's mandate after the latter signed a case protocol on April 1, 2016. The protocol had been negotiated and signed by the parties' attorneys; however Mr Forgac claims that his lawyer was not authorized to agree to its terms. [9] A second lawyer appeared briefly on Mr Forgac's behalf on May 20, 2016, to ask for a postponement of Bombardier's motion to dismiss. This motion had already been postponed by the Court on May 6, when Mr Forgac failed to appear to contest it.

After obtaining the postponement, Mr Forgac's lawyer withdrew from the file. [10] With the exception of the demand and the case protocol, Mr Forgac has authored all of his subsequent notices, motions and communications to the parties and the Court. According to Bombardier's attorney, Mr Forgac has sent a total of 19 pleadings to her over the last three months. Many of these have not been filed into the court record.

Moreover, none of Mr Forgac's motions, even those filed into court, has been supported by a notice of presentation or a solemn declaration (affidavit). [11] Two of Mr Forgac's pleadings are of particular interest here. On May 17, he sent a notice to the defendants informing them he was withdrawing his actions against Normatec Consultants Inc. and the third parties, Glenn Holland and Christopher Bell. On the same day, he emailed an amended demand, naming Bombardier as the sole defendant. However, Mr Forgac did not file a copy of his amended demand.

As a result, they do not appear in the court record. [12] Mr Forgac states that he cannot afford legal counsel. However, it is questionable that he wants legal counsel. Mr Forgac believes that he understands the rules of civil procedure better than anyone else, including the defendants' lawyers and the judges of this Court.

He has said so in his writings to Bombardier's counsel and to Associate Chief Justice Petras, to whim he has written on three occasions to complain about the progress of the case and to lecture her on the rules of civil procedure. [13] However, it is Mr Forgac's misunderstanding of the rules of civil procedure – not that of others – that is the cause of the present difficulties. He has not respected the case protocol (or disavowed his former lawyer's signature on it) and he has failed to prepare and file his numerous motions in the proper manner.

On two occasions, he was absent for the presentation of the defendants' motions, causing them to be postponed. He has hired a lawyer to ask for a postponement and then revoked that lawyer's mandate. Mr Forgac's conduct has unnecessarily inflated the defendants' legal expenses. [14] Furthermore, Mr Forgac's motions and writings are quarrelsome and vexatious.

This is illustrated by his unsupported claims that both Bombardier and its counsel have acted fraudulently, have lied to the Court and have abused his rights. [15] Mr Forgac's stubbornly-held belief that he alone knows the truth is characteristic of a vexatious litigant. [16] The Court has broad powers under the Code of Civil Procedure to sanction abusive behaviour and to manage case proceedings. In the present case, the Court does not consider it appropriate to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

A preliminary examination of the demand reveals some prima facie support for Mr Forgac's claim that he was hired by Bombardier and Noramtec for a fixed term, and then dismissed before the expiry of that term.

Accordingly, it cannot be said that his action is manifestly unfounded or frivolous. [17] Nevertheless, the Court believes it is necessary to sanction Mr Forgac's conduct and to impose case management measures to ensure that future proceedings remain proportional and reasonable. [18] Given Mr Forgac's failure to abide by the case protocol, his numerous, lengthy and deficient motions, and his failure to appear in court on May 6 and 20, he shall be ordered to pay $5,000 to Bombardier as compensation for its unnecessary legal costs.

[ 7 ] After carefully reviewing Mr. Forgac’s application and the materials appended thereto, I can only conclude that the appeal of Justice Collier’s judgment would be doomed to failure. FOR THESE REASONS, THE UNDERSIGNED: [ 8 ] DISMISSES the application for leave to appeal and the related application, the whole with legal costs in favour of Bombardier Inc. ROBERT M. MAINVILLE, J.A.