2022 QCCQ 9669, 2022 QCCQ 9669

E.M. c. Attorney General of Canada 2022 QCCQ 9669 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-716052-214 DATE: November 18, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ E. M. Plaintiff v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] E.

M. claims $15,000 in damages from the Government of Canada. [ 2 ] The Attorney General of Canada has filed a declinatory exception and asserts that the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim given the terms of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (R.S.C., 1985, ch. C-50 ) (the “ Act ”). [ 3 ] Ms. M. contests the declinatory exception and argues that since the court clerk did not rule her application inadmissible, this Court should hear the claim. [ 4 ] This application is one of forty applications that Ms.

M. has filed with the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec between April 2021 and April 2022 against various defendants, including foreign states, former employers or work colleagues, a physician who provided medical care to her and a hospital.

In all but a few of these applications, she alleges that she was psychologically and physically harassed at the “brain/mind level” by the defendant. [ 5 ] The undersigned was appointed to case manage 31 of these lawsuits pursuant to court orders issued on December 2, 2021, and July 7, 2022. [1] ANALYSIS [ 6 ] Subsection 21(1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act states that in all cases where a claim for liability is made against the federal Crown, except where the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the claim, the superior court of the province in which the claim arises has concurrent jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter of the claim. [ 7 ]

Section 2 of the Act provides that for the purposes of the Act , the term “liability” means, in the Province of Québec, extracontractual civil liability. [ 8 ] The allegations contained in Ms. M.’s Application are incomprehensible, incoherent, and unbelievable.

Among other things, she alleges that she is suing the government because she was manipulated “at the brain/mind level”, or because the government is working with “dead entities”, or again “for allowing to touch my…psychic.” The essence of her claim is nonetheless one framed in extracontractual civil liability. [ 9 ] Subsection 21(1) of the Act is clear and unambiguous. The effect of this provision is that in the province of Québec, a claim framed in extracontractual civil liability brought against the government of Canada must be brought before the superior court of Québec.

No other court of justice of the province, including the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, has subject matter jurisdiction in such circumstances. [ 10 ] Subsection 21(1) of the Act has been interpreted and applied on numerous occasions by the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division to dismiss claims like the one filed by Mrs. M. for want of jurisdiction. [2] [ 11 ] Ms. M.’s assertion that the Court should nonetheless exercise jurisdiction over her claim because the court clerk did not rule it inadmissible is without merit. [ 12 ] It is true that

article 545 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that every application filed at the court office of the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec is presented to the court clerk, who determines whether it is admissible as a “small claim” under the rules set out in articles 536 and 537 C.C.P. If the application is admissible, the court record is opened.

[ 13 ] However, and without deciding whether the court clerk’s screening powers under

article 545 of the Code include the power to declare a claim inadmissible because of the terms of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act , if the court clerk omits to declare an application inadmissible, this does not preclude a defendant from raising the Court of Québec’s lack of jurisdiction, nor is the Court itself prevented from raising this issue. In fact, given that a court’s jurisdiction is a question of public order, the Court must raise this issue on its own initiative, no matter what the court clerk may have decided under

article 545 of the Code . [ 14 ] In conclusion, given that the essence of Mrs. M.’s claim is a claim in extracontractual civil liability against the Crown and given the terms of subsection 21(1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act , this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the application. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] DECLARES that the Court of Québec does not have jurisdiction to hear the application; [ 16 ] DISMISSES the application brought by E. M. against the Attorney General of Canada; [ 17 ] WITH COSTS. __________________________________ ENRICO FORLINI, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: October 24, 2022