2016 QCCQ 14770, 2016 QCCQ 14770

Québec (Procureur général) c. Tsoukalas 2016 QCCQ 14770 COURT OF QUEBEC « Practice Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL « Civil Division» No: 500-02-176415-110 DATE: December 8, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE DOMINIQUE VÉZINA, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC Plaintiff v.

SPIROS TSOUKALAS Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Court has to decide a second application (the Application) from Procureur Général du Québec (PGQ) , requesting that Spiros Tsoukalas (Mr Tsoukalas) be declared guilty of contempt of court [1] . [ 2 ] Mr Tsoukalas attended the hearing and contested the Application, providing explanations for his alleged defaults. QUESTION IN ISSUE Did PGQ establish that a second judgment for contempt can be rendered against Mr Tsoukalas?

CONTEXT AND ANALYSIS [ 3 ] This litigious matter began on April 14, 2005, when an officer assigned to the file, Sylvie Picard, sent a claim notice to Spyridon Tsoukalas indicating: Further to a misrepresentation of your circumstances, you received a higher amount of assistance than that to which you were entitled. You must therefore repay the department $ 8 235,00. […] EXPLANATIONS : -You owned a vehicle. All or part of the value of this vehicle was not previously taken into account. PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT : -This claim is equivalent to a formal notice within the meaning of the Act.

This means that you owe an amount to the department and must repay this debt. This also means that the department may take legal steps if you fail to repay your debt. […] -At the expiry of the review and appeal periods specified in the Act, you will be mailed a recovery certificate.

This certificate confirms the amount of your debt and authorizes the department to take the required steps to recover the amount owed. [ 4 ] The first name of Mr Tsoukalas, whether Spiros or Spyridon, remains unexplained. [ 5 ] Although the PGQ’s claim notice was issued under the name of Spyridon Tsoukalas, all the other proceedings referred to Spiros Tsoukalas. [ 6 ] This element was not raised by Mr Tsoukalas’ attorney.

[ 7 ] The claim was contested by Mr Tsoukalas, without success, and ultimately a recovery certificate [2] was issued on January 24, 2011 and filed in the Court record on January 26, 2011. [ 8 ] According to

article 103 of the Individual and Family Assistant Act [3] , such recovery certificate amounted to a judgment. [ 9 ] On that date, with an updated calculation, Mr Tsoukalas then owed an amount of $9,355.35 to PGQ. [ 10 ] He failed to pay. [ 11 ] PGQ then presented a Motion entitled as follows: Requête du demandeur pour contraindre le défendeur à déclarer et déposer la portion saisissable de ses revenus de travail (Art. 651 C.p.c.) [ 12 ] On March 12, 2014, proceeding by default after serving the Motion, PGQ obtained from Judge Yves Hamel (Judge Hamel) the issuance of an Order requesting that Mr Tsoukalas file an income declaration and deposit part of his income at the Court until complete satisfaction of the judgment of January 26, 2011. [ 13 ] On May 2, 2014, Mr Tsoukalas attended Court for that Motion.

Judge Diane Quenneville explained that he had to fill an income declaration.

However, she then had to issue a Bench warrant to do so as he left the Court House. [ 14 ] Mr Tsoukalas’ income declaration, finally completed by him on May 7, 2014, was still insufficient, referring only to the yearly income. [ 15 ] On June 4, 2014, a Motion to obtain further details on the amount to be deposited by Mr Tsoukalas each month at the Court was presented. [ 16 ] Mr Tsoulakis was absent. [ 17 ] Judge Julie Veilleux declared the amount to be paid ($56.31 per week / $244 per month). [ 18 ] Mr Tsoukalas failed to comply with this Order and no amount was reimbursed whatsoever regarding the judgment of January 26, 2011. [ 19 ] On December 1, 2014, Judge Gatien Fournier issued a special Order that Mr Tsoukalas appear on December 10, 2014, for an accusation of contempt of court. [ 20 ] On this date, in the absence of Mr Tsoukalas, the special Order was postponed to February 19, 2015.

The first contempt of court [ 21 ] On February 19, 2015, Judge Hamel heard the evidence presented by PGQ regarding Mr Tsoukalas’ failure to respect the Orders. [ 22 ] Mr Tsoukalas was absent. [ 23 ] In his judgment dated February 24, 2015 [4] , Judge Hamel explained the scope of his decision: [1] Le Tribunal est saisi d’une demande conformément aux articles 49 et suivant du Code de procédure civile (C.p.c.) de la part du demandeur afin de trouver le défendeur coupable d’outrage au tribunal pour ne pas avoir respecté l’ordonnance émise en date du 15 mars 2014 qui a été rendue selon l’article 651 C.p.c. [2] L’Ordonnance enjoignait le défendeur de comparaître en personne devant le Greffier de la Cour du Québec dans les quinze (15) jours de la signification de celle-ci, au Greffe civil du Palais de justice de Montréal, situé au 1 rue Notre-Dame Est à Montréal, pour y déposer une déclaration dûment complétée conformément à l’article 651 C.p.c., afin de déclarer le montant de sa rémunération, ce qui a été fait en

partie de la part du défendeur en date du 7 mai 2014. [3] Cependant, l’ordonnance enjoignait également au défendeur de déposer au Greffe du Tribunal, dans les quinze (15 jours) de la signification la présente ordonnance, la portion de cette rémunération établie suivant les taux déterminés à l’article 553 du C.p.c. et de déposer chaque mois au Greffe la portion de telle rémunération jusqu’à ce que le défendeur ait satisfait au jugement rendu contre lui. Il s’agit de cette

partie de l’ordonnance qui a fait l’objet d’une requête pour outrage au Tribunal. [ 24 ] Judge Hamel also summarized the facts of the saga between the parties over the years. [ 25 ] He concluded that Mr Tsoukalas failed to pay the amount owed to PGQ and he condemned him for contempt for failing to abide by the terms of the judgment of January 26, 2011, the Orders of March 12, 2014 and of June 4, 2014, where the terms of payment had been defined. [ 26 ] Juge Hamel applied

article 51 CCP: 51. Except where otherwise provided, anyone who is guilty of contempt of court is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year. Imprisonment for refusal to obey any process or order may be repeatedly inflicted until the person condemned obeys. [ 27 ] Judge Hamel ordered Mr Tsoukalas to pay the maximum fine of $5,000 within 60 days.

[ 28 ] He mentioned : [40] Par ailleurs, l’

article 708 du Code criminel ( C.c. ) en matière d’outrage au tribunal et l’

article 787 du C.c. en matière d’imposition d’une peine suite à une infraction punissable sur déclaration

sommaire de culpabilité prévoit « une amende maximale de 100 $ ou 5 000 $ respectivement et d’un emprisonnement maximal de 90 jours ou 6 mois respectivement, ou de l’une de ces peines » . Or, l’article 51 du C.p.c. réfère uniquement à l’une ou l’autre de ses sanctions possibles et non les deux. [41] Ceci étant, avec égards pour l’opinion contraire, le Tribunal est d’avis qu’il ne peut accorder une amende et une peine d’emprisonnement en l’absence d’une disposition spécifique à cet effet. [ 29 ] In case of default, Judge Hamel wrote: ORDONNE l’exécution du présent jugement selon la loi, c’est-à-dire en vertu de l’article 54 du Code de procédure civile du Québec , conformément au

Chapitre XIII du Code de procédure pénale ; [ 30 ] No fine was paid by Mr Tsoukalas. The present Application for contempt of court [ 31 ] The Court has now to decide a second Application for contempt of court. (Such Application had been issued and served prior to the enforcement of the new Code of Civil Procedure .

For these reasons, the Court will refer to the previous applicable CCP [5] .) [ 32 ] The present Application for contempt of court is entitled: Requête pour émission d’une ordonnance spéciale de comparaître à une accusation d’outrage au tribunal sur défaut de déposer la portion saisissable des revenus de travailleur autonome (art. 53 et 651 C.p.c.) [ 33 ] It was first to be presented on October 21, 2015, but has been postponed seven times prior to this hearing. [ 34 ] It contains the following conclusions: ACCUEILLIR la présente requête; […] DÉCLARER le défendeur coupable d’outrage au tribunal; CONDAMNER le défendeur à l’une des peines prévues à l’article 51 du C.p.c., soit une amende n’excédant pas 5 000 $ ou l’emprisonnement pour une période d’au plus un (1) an; […] [ 35 ] In its Application, after explaining the facts leading to the judgment rendered by Judge Hamel on February 24, 2015, PGQ further alleges: 19.

Le défendeur n’a aucun motif et justification pour ne pas déposer au greffe de cette Cour la portion saisissable de ses revenus de travailleur autonome et a contrevenu aux ordonnances des 12 mars 2014 et 4 juin 2014, puisqu’aucun montant n’a été déposé à ce jour; 20.

En date du 14 septembre 2015, le solde dû est de 11 190.97 $ en capital, frais et intérêts, tel qu’il appert de la copie de la transaction informatique du dossier monétaire (SCDM) produit sous la cote R-2 ; [ 36 ] These allegations correspond to the same facts which led to the first contempt of court. [ 37 ] Pursuant to the judgment of Judge Hamel, in July and August 2016, two Motions were served by Mr Tsoukalas :

a) Motion to obtain a revocation of the judgment of February 24, 2015 of Judge Hamel;

b) Motion to oppose the execution of a seizure of a black 2006 Dodge Charger issued by the percepteur des amendes de Longueuil ( the Collector) . [ 38 ] On September 16, 2016, both Motions were dismissed by Judge Emmanuelle Saucier. The burden of proof [ 39 ] The burden lies on PGQ and its proof submitted must leave no possibility of reasonable doubt [6] . [ 40 ] The evidence must be beyond the reasonable doubt that Mr Tsoukalas [7] : 1) did not respect the judgment; 2) had knowledge of the Orders; 3) did not respect the Orders ( actus reus ), and; 4) did so intentionally ( mens rea ).

Actus reus [ 41 ] The Court will not analyse anew Mr Tsoukalas’ knowledge of the various Motions and Proceedings, as such exercise had already been decided by Judge Saucier who concluded that various notices were served or remitted personally to Mr Tsoukalas prior to dismissing his application for revocation. [ 42 ] As of the date of the present hearing, Mr Tsoukalas has not respected the Orders of the Court. [ 43 ] Such behaviour led to this Application. [ 44 ] On behalf of PGQ, Me Tremblay tended to testify herself rather than present evidence. [ 45 ] The Court will examine the evidence, as presented. [ 46 ] PGQ has established that various documents were drafted in English and were sent to Mr Tsoukalas. [ 47 ] Indeed, the file began with the claim notice drafted in English, dated April 14, 2005, already quoted. [ 48 ] The witness for PGQ, Natalya Rotar, on behalf of the Ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (MTESS), confirmed that Mr Tsoukalas has made no payment with respect to the litigious matter with PGQ, although numerous attempts were made to recover the money [8] , including various telephone conversations with Mr Tsoukalas in this regard and the issuance of some letters in English.

For instance:

a) Letter of August 30, 2013: reminder of Mr Tsoukalas’ obligations;

b) Two letters of September 24, 2013: enforceability of the debt and request for a mortgage agreement. [ 49 ] Mr Tsoukalas was asked to pay and was made aware that legal proceedings would follow in the absence of payment. [ 50 ] His failure to pay led to a contempt of court and an order to pay $5,000 which he also failed to pay. [ 51 ] PGQ admitted that it has no right of claim for this fine. [ 52 ] The default to pay such a fine can lead to an action by a collector under

Chapter XIII Execution of Judgment of the Code of Penal Procedure which triggered the vehicle’s seizure by the Collector of Longueuil. Such default can also lead to imprisonment. [ 53 ] It is without a doubt that the Court concludes that Mr Tsoukalas did not respect the judgment and the Orders from the Court. [ 54 ] PGQ has proven the actus reus . Mr Tsoukalas’ arguments [ 55 ] Mr Tsoukalas testified at the hearing to contest the Application. He raised the following arguments:

a) he had not received some of the documents;

b) a language barrier prevented him from understanding the documents;

c) he was confused as to whether or not he owed money;

d) he was opened to negotiate terms of payment;

e) other moveable goods were available for execution. [ 56 ] Regarding Mr Tsoukalas’ arguments, the Court notes that he has been represented by an attorney since October 2015 and had plenty of time to understand the legal situation and to find a solution. [ 57 ] Mr Tsoukalas had also plenty of time to prepare for the Application. Mens rea [ 58 ] Mr Tsoukalas was ordered to:

a) pay the debt, by monthly reimbursements;

b) pay the fine, within 60 days. [ 59 ] The Court is faced with a delinquent debtor. [ 60 ] Apart from the passage of time and Mr Tsoukalas’ continuous disrespect for the Court, no new facts were proven. [ 61 ] Regarding the special nature of the contempt of court in Quebec Law, the Supreme Court of Canada [9] in Vidéotron ltée c. Industries Microlec pointed out:

Les tribunaux font également preuve d’une réticence notable à condamner pour outrage au tribunal l’intimé qui ne s’est pas conformé à une ordonnance de payer une somme d’argent, l’emprisonnement pour dettes ayant été aboli. Il faut que la conduite du débiteur démontre une certaine volonté de se soustraire à ses obligations […].

Comme la Cour d’appel l’a déjà souligné, l’outrage au tribunal ne peut être réduit à un simple moyen d’exécution des jugements. […] [ 62 ] Contempt of court should not be used as a tool for execution of a judgment. [ 63 ] However, by still failing to comply, a second condemnation for contempt of court for a different period of time can be declared, as shown by several cases involving the Agence du revenu du Québec [10] . [ 64 ] Imprisonment can be ordered when the Court is faced with a repeat offender [11] and when the offender has the capacity to pay. [ 65 ] The Supreme Court decision in Vidéotron ltée has been commented by the Federal Court of Appeal [12] where it added: [63] […] Toutefois, la personne qui ne se conforme pas à une ordonnance de payer une somme d’argent peut être emprisonnée pour outrage si elle démontre « une certaine volonté de se soustraire à ses obligations » : Ibidem .

C’est-à-dire que la personne en question ne veut pas payer sa dette même si elle a les moyens de le faire. [ 66 ] Commenting this judgment, Magali Michaud [13] indicated: La particularité de cette décision vient du fait que la Cour ordonne une sentence d’emprisonnement alors que le refus de se conformer à l’ordonnance résulte principalement du non-paiement d’une dette découlant du jugement initial et du non-respect de l’ordonnance pour outrage au tribunal. Dans la jurisprudence antérieure, il n’est pas rare de voir une sentence d’emprisonnement suspendue advenant le non-respect de l’ordonnance pour outrage.

Toutefois, les précédents en matière de réelle peine d’emprisonnement dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle sont plutôt rares, et généralement, font suite au non-respect d’une injonction. La décision confirme l’intérêt de la justice à imposer une sentence d’emprisonnement, dans certains cas d’outrage au tribunal, lorsque la

partie condamnée fait fi de ses obligations et méprise le système de justice. La décision vient aussi réaffirmer qu’il n’existe pas d’immunité contre l’incarcération en cas de non-respect du paiement d’une dette quand il est établi que la

partie est en mesure de s’acquitter de cette somme d’argent.

Le jugement confirme également l’imposition possible de mesures coercitives contre les dirigeants et les administrateurs d’entreprises qui ne respectent pas les ordonnances de la Cour allant jusqu’à l’imposition d’une sentence d’emprisonnement. (references omitted)) [ 67 ] PGQ’s proof does not show that Mr Tsoukalas is in a position to pay. [ 68 ] PGQ did follow up on the assets of Mr Tsoukalas [14] , but failed to demonstrate that he had sufficient assets to justify a second fine or an imprisonment. [ 69 ] Two assets were discussed: a property and a vehicle. [ 70 ] As for the property, no deed of sale was filed by PGQ or Mr Tsoukalas.

The latter testified that he was not even the owner of this property. [ 71 ] The only remaining asset would be a vehicle, already under seizure, for which PGQ has no interest or status. [ 72 ] Furthermore, the equity on this vehicle has not been proven. [ 73 ] PGQ has not proven the mens rea . [ 74 ] PGQ has not established that Mr Tsoukalis can be condemned for a second contempt of court. [ 75 ] However, the Court notes and emphasizes that Mr Tsoukalas has indicated his firm intention to negotiate terms of payment with PGQ and trusts that he will act promptly to resolve this matter in the very near future.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT:

DISMISSES the Application of Procureur Général du Québec; WITH LEGAL COSTS. __________________________________ DOMINIQUE VÉZINA, J.C.Q. Date of trial: October 20, 2016 Me Nathalie Tremblay and Me Elsa Kelly-Rhéaume For Plaintiff Procureur général du Québec Me Thomas Fletcher For Defendant Spiros Tsoukalas