2021 QCCQ 13846, 2021 QCCQ 13846

Brief c. Réseau Sélection 2021 QCCQ 13846 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-22-256217-194 DATE: December 3, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ DOMINIQUE BRIEF Plaintiff v.

RÉSEAU SÉLECTION and RÉAL BOUCLIN and ANDRÉ GREGOIRE and DIANA MARIANO Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT RENDERED FROM THE BENCH ON DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION TO DISMISS ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Defendants have presented an application to dismiss plaintiff’s action in damages. [ 2 ] As of November 30 th last, plaintiff was seeking damages in the aggregate amount of $11,750.00. However, this morning, plaintiff declared that she was suing the four defendants for $10,000.00 each.

This is not what is sought in the conclusions of either the amended originating application or the original application.

Furthermore, plaintiff did not present an application to amend her conclusions. [ 3 ] Be that as it may, the Court must now address defendants’ application to dismiss the suit for its alleged inadmissibility. [ 4 ] As appears from the inordinate number of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Superior Court and Court of Québec, plaintiff has been instrumental in litigation regarding her late father Jean-Claude Brief, his curatorship while alive and his estate once deceased, going as far back as 2011, a most recent decision having been rendered by the Superior Court on May 31, 2019 (exhibit R-1). [ 5 ] Over the course of many years, plaintiff has sued her father; her sister; the Public Curator of Québec; her lawyer; the liquidator of the estate; and now the owners and administrators of the residence where the late Brief lived from August 16, 2011 to August 3, 2016. [ 6 ] There has been a never-ending stream of proceedings resulting in, inter alia , judgments filed as exhibits R-1 to R-8, covering all instances of the judicial system, and resulting in plaintiff herein being declared a quarrelsome litigant pursuant to

article 55 of the Civil

Code of Procedure , by a judge of the Superior Court (judgment dated May 31, 2019, exhibit R-1). [ 7 ] After hearing the parties on the matter and examining the documents filed into the Court record, the Court has concluded that defendants’ application to dismiss must be granted for several reasons. [ 8 ] Firstly, plaintiff’s recourse represents a not-so-veiled attempt to appeal the judgment rendered by Justice Anne Jacob, on June 21, 2016, in case n o 500-14-040437-121 (exhibit R-5). [ 9 ] In paragraphs 13 to 36 of her amended originating application herein, plaintiff refers to the testimony of the witnesses in the above case.

Testimony is purely a matter of evidence which belongs to the Court before which the hearing took place, and this Court has absolutely no authority to intervene therein. [ 10 ] What is more, in her testimony this morning, plaintiff candidly admitted that the present file is a case about “what happened during the trial” of June 20 and 21, 2016. [ 11 ] Furthermore, plaintiff instituted her recourse more than 3 years after the alleged faults would have been committed (paragraphs 7 to 11 of the amended application, and plaintiff’s testimony stating, “Wrongs were done.” “There were professional mistakes.”) (

article 2925 of the Civil Code of Quebec ). [ 12 ] Plaintiff’s amended allegations of “financial loss” and “stolen items” are also time-barred, as the death occurred on November 4, 2016, and the claim related thereto was instituted on November 30, 2021. [ 13 ] What is more, defendants’ application to dismiss must be granted, as plaintiff does not have the necessary capacity to act herein, in so far as the alleged financial losses are concerned.

If any exist, they belong to the estate and not to plaintiff personally. [ 14 ] As stated by the honourable Sylvain Coutlée in his judgment dated December 12, 2019; « Ce dossier n’est qu’un dossier dans une longue litanie de recours judiciaires entrepris par la demanderesse qui a été déclarée plaideur quérulent par le juge Fraiberg dans un jugement daté du 13 avril 2016. » [ 15 ] The Court would also like to cite the following passages from the Superior Court judgment of the honourable Micheline Perreault rendered on July 13, 2015 : “[57] M.’s attorney indicated to the Court that D. has ignored her obligation to pay costs despite court orders to that effect. [58] Some of Justice Mayrand’s comments, who heard the parties for three days, bear repeating: « [39] Le comportement de D. justifie son retrait comme curateur aux biens de J..

Elle a défié et occulté maintes ordonnances, y compris celle visant la mise en vente de la maison qui devait se faire dans les six mois après le 1er décembre 2012. Elle a retardé la mise en vente et a même tenté de faire «postdater» le contrat de courtage avec l’agent immobilier qui a bien entendu refusé. Par la suite, elle a empêché la vente par des procédures d’appel, inutilement, quand on sait que J. ne vivait plus dans cette maison [12] .» [59] By her actions and the many frivolous and unfounded procedures she has filed, D. has demonstrated she is incapable of accepting the Mayrand Judgment.

The Court believes it is not mere coincidence that D. waited until her appeals of the Mayrand Judgment were dismissed before she filed a Motion in disavowal . Her abusive behaviour has caused prejudice to M. and the CPQ who have to continuously respond to new procedures that are withdrawn, postponed sine die and often dismissed with costs that the other party is unable to recover. [60] As appears from a

summary analysis of the procedures, they were and are, vexatious and improper. Although D. is acting ès- qualité of curator to Mr. B., the Court fails to understand how the procedures in dispute are in Mr. B.’s best interests. On the contrary, they achieve nothing other than to deplete his financial resources. [61] Finally, the nature and ultimate purpose of the procedures instituted by D. since the Mayrand Judgment are contrary to the principles stated in articles 256 and 257 C.C.Q. They are also disproportionate in terms of costs and time they require, to the complexity of the dispute.

Let us remember that D. has been curator to the person of Mr. B. since August 2012. To re-visit the issue of the curatorship to Mr. B.’s property is contrary to the principles of proportionality established by

article 4.2 C.C.P.” [ 16 ] As well, the Court wishes to cite paragraphs 11 to 13 of the honourable Guylène Beaugé’s decision of January 6, 2017: “[11] The above letters are an indication of the Respondent’s intent to be remitted Mr. B.’s assets, regardless of the pending court procedures.

And given the prima facie evidence of the Respondent’s suspicious behaviour, as well as the conclusions to which judges of this Court have come in the matter of the management of those assets, it is urgent to appoint a third party as a liquidator to prevent a serious financial prejudice to the estate. [12] As for the colour of right, a liquidator has a serious responsibility and is accountable to the heirs. Here, at first sight, it is unlikely that the Respondent will cooperate with her sister or the CPQ in the liquidation of the estate.

As an example, she believes that the CPQ orchestrated her father’s death, and she did not even mention the Applicant in the obituary at the funeral. [13] The criteria of the risk of serious and irreparable harm also favors the Applicant. The uncontested prima facie evidence shows that the Respondent would have misappropriated some funds while she was managing her father’s assets.

The Court specifies that it does not decide on the merits; however there is sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the issuance of a safeguard order.” [ 17 ] Also, as stated in the judgment of the honourable Micheline Perrault, J.C.S. above:

“[50] In the decision Hébert c. Lacroix , the Court of appeal listed the main characteristics of a quarrelsome litigant : « 1. Opiniâtreté et narcissisme; 2. Demandeur plutôt que défendeur; 3. Multiplication des recours vexatoires, y compris contre les auxiliaires de justice; 4. Répétition des mêmes questions et des mêmes recours; 5. Arguments juridiques inventifs et incongrus; 6. Incapacité à payer les frais de justice; 7. Décisions portées en appel ou objet de demandes de révision ou de rétractation; 8. Se représente seul. » [51] The Court finds that D. has shown several of these characteristics.

Other than the many improper procedures filed by D. as described herein above, the Court also considered the following. [52] Since May 2012, D. has been represented by five different attorneys: - M tre Joyce Blond-Frank, from July 2012 to October 16th 2012 - M tre Alexandre Morin, from October 25 th to November 21 st 2012 - M tre Laurent Benatar, from February 13 th 2013 to July 30 th 2013 - M tre Jean El-Masri, from August 6 th 2013 to April 2014 - M tre Mylène Beaupré, from May 2014 to October 22 nd 2014 [53] D. is now representing herself. » [ 18 ] The Court wishes to reiterate the above words to conclude that it finds the present application to be abusive, and plaintiff to be a quarrelsome litigator. [ 19 ] Even if defendants had not amended their application to include a conclusion to this effect, the Court, in virtue of

section 51 C.C.P., would have come to the same conclusion proprio motu . [ 20 ] The nature of plaintiff’s allegations and pleadings and last-minute amendments are repetitive, vexatious, inflammatory (plaintiff alleges her father was “suffocated to death”) and often incomprehensible. [ 21 ] Plaintiff claims that this demand has nothing to do with the judicial saga that she has been a part of for years; but the Court believes it to be nothing more than a display of insatisfaction with past judgments, an inability to accept the outcome of the above judgments; a rehashing of a matter that is closed; and an attempt to revive the same litigation under a different heading.

WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: GRANTS defendants’ application to dismiss; DISMISSES plaintiff’s originating application as amended; DECLARES the application abusive, as it is clearly unfounded; DECLARES plaintiff’s conduct to be vexatious and quarrelsome; DECLARES the application to be unreasonable and filed in an attempt to defeat the ends of justice, given all of the previous above- mentioned judgments; PROHIBITS plaintiff from instituting a judicial application or presenting a pleading in an ongoing proceeding except with the authority of and subject to the conditions determined by the Chief justice of the Court of Québec; THE WHOLE , with legal costs. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q.

Dominique Brief Self-represented Me Justin Beeby ROBINSON SHEPPARD SHAPIRO S.E.N.C.R.L.-L.L.P. Lawyers for defendants Date of hearing: December 3, 2021