2011 QCCQ 11179, 2011 QCCQ 11179

Monestime c. Mitsumi Takahashi-Work CTV Montreal 2011 QCCQ 11179 COURT OF QUEBEC « Small Claims Division » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF LAVAL TOWN OF LAVAL Civil Division No: 540-32-022245-094 DATE: September 23, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE H. CHICOINE, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ RONALD MONESTIME Plaintiff v.

MITSUMI TAKAHASHI-WORK CTV MONTREAL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (rendered September 19, 2011) ______________________________________________________________________ For the reasons given at the hearing and numerically recorded, in particular; [ 1 ] Plaintiff is asking to sentence the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the sum of 7 000 $. [ 2 ] Plaintiff states the cause of action as follows : « The Defendant is freely, knowingly and wilfully involved, contributing and participating in the systematic, outrageous violation of the Plaintiff's Privacy and Private Life.

These actions are in complete violation of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedom

Article 5 and

Article 35 and 36 of the Civil Code of Quebec . » [ 3 ] In an annexed document or detailed application of 12 pages, Plaintiff alleges among other things : - Live Video Participants and Interaction : people appearing on live Television Broadcasts have access to a real-time, live video feed of him in his home; - Off-Air "Interaction" Provision : The Defendant(

s) use the same method to respond to things the Plaintiff has said or done at anytime while they had not been on the air; - Computer Hacking; - Phone Conversation Interference; - Controlled Audible Sounds, Noises and Actions : employing controlled audible sounds and noises as well as certain controlled actions in and around his house, such as controlled thumping sounds in ceilings, controlled barking dogs voice box from neighbours yard, controlled sharp hissing/whistling sound from the Plaintiff's computer speakers, residual water in faucets and shower pipes suddenly running […] - In-Person Public Surveillance; - In-Person Public Trailing. [ 4 ] The Plaintiff alleges unlawful hyper-surveillance, saying he has observed that he is the subject of an elaborate and extensive form of pervasive and full-time, interactive and monitored hyper-surveillance.

[ 5 ] Asked if he has any other proof than is own words or his own testimony (exposed in his 12-pages application and 26-pages sworn declaration, exhibit P-5), he admits having no other witnesses. [ 6 ] Being asked if he can submit any expert witnesses or technicians (or any report of such experts or technicians) regarding inspection of his TV set, or his telephone system, or his computer, he says he has no such proof to submit. [ 7 ] Other suits based on similar causes of action by Plaintiff against Federal Communication Commission and other Defendants have been dismissed, by District Courts in the State of New York and the State of Vermont, as being baseless, fanciful, fantastic and delusional. [ 8 ] Present Defendant is working for CTV like other media defendants and regulators in both NY and Vermont claims. [ 9 ] In his first paragraph of this application, Plaintiff writes : « This small claims lawsuit is as a result of torts being done in regards to the Violation of the Plaintiff privacy by a larger group of individuals and corporations.

It is a much broader and complex case with significantly higher damages, however due to the systematic elusion of justice by these Defendants and their committing torts at an highly outrageous level, which almost default has thus far prevented, though unlawfully, this case from being successfully served, as briefly detailed below, the Plaintiff now has to resort to sue one participant, for one tort, and at a much lesser damage value in order to affordably be able to obtain binding and under oath testimony from these Defendants in order to be able to proceed with his main case. » [ 10 ]

Section 54.1 C.C.P. states : 54.1. A court may, at any time, on request or even on its own initiative after having heard the parties on the point, declare an action or other pleading improper and impose a sanction on the party concerned. The procedural impropriety may consist in a claim or pleading that is clearly unfounded, frivolous or dilatory or in conduct that is vexatious or quarrelsome.

It may also consist in bad faith, in a use of procedure that is excessive or unreasonable or causes prejudice to another person, or in an attempt to defeat the ends of justice, in particular if it restricts freedom of expression in public debate. [ 11 ] The documentation written by Plaintiff and deposited in Court's file is whimsical and fanciful. The Plaintiff's story has the characteristics of paranoiac delirium or persecution mania. [ 12 ] Plaintiff's application is frivolous and unfounded.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiff's Application with costs ( 148 $ ). __________________________________ CLAUDE H. CHICOINE, J.Q.C. Date of hearing: September 19, 2011