2021 QCCQ 10339, 2021 QCCQ 10339

Lato c. Thibaudeau 2021 QCCQ 10339 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-707936-193 DATE: October 18, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ CARLO LATO Plaintiff v.

JEAN-BAPTISTE THIBAUDEAU and ANNE GRENIER Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff is suing defendants for damages in the amount of $15,000.00. [ 2 ] In his demand, he alleges the following, inter alia : « 4. Le montant total de la réclamation de la

partie demanderesse se détaille comme suit : 10 000$ pour la valeur des biens de la

partie demanderesse, 5000$ pour le stresse et inconvénient subi par le demandeur. 5. Aux faits mentionnés ci-dessus, la

partie demanderesse apporte les précisions suivantes : Vers le 4 juin 2018 , suite à une dispute qui a nécessité une intervention policière, le demandeur a dû quitter l'appartement qu'il partage avec le défendeur monsieur Thibodeau en tant que colocataire, le 1 juillet 2018le demandeur s'est présenté au 1681 Laurier est afin de récupérer ses biens, or ses biens ne se trouvaient plus dans l'appartement.

À ce jour, le demandeur n'a aucune idée ,où se trouvent ses biens et effets personnels ( ses couteaux de chef, ses vêtements, ses effets personnels, tels que livres de cuisines, sa tablette de lecture de marque Sony, ses documents officiels tel que passeport et ses plantes). » (application dated January 25, 2019) [ 3 ] Defendant Anne Grenier denies liability and denies being contractually bound to plaintiff. [ 4 ] Defendant Jean-Baptiste Thibaudeau did not file a written contestation.

He did, however, appear at Court as a witness. [ 5 ] On April 26, 2021, which was the first day of hearing, plaintiff was not ready to proceed. Under the circumstances, the Court held a case management hearing, with a view to assist the parties to prepare for the hearing on the merits. Plaintiff and Grenier were told exactly what they needed to prove and how. [ 6 ] On the day of the hearing, plaintiff was once again unprepared.

He asked the Court for a postponement, which was denied. [ 7 ] Despite the Court’s attempts to assist plaintiff in presenting his evidence, before long, plaintiff became agitated, hostile, uncooperative and rude. [ 8 ] In fact, given plaintiff’s behaviour and demeanour, the Court felt obliged to ask for the presence of security guards in the

courtroom. [ 9 ] During the hearing, at 10:35 A.M., plaintiff suddenly and unexpectedly got up, and, in an angry, agitated, arrogant and aggressive state, declared that he was leaving, as, according to him, the ongoing judicial process was “absurd”.

He refused to reconsider; he refused to answer any more questions, and simply abandoned his case. [ 10 ] At that time, the Court had no choice but to declare his proof closed. [ 11 ] The Court then proceeded to hear the testimony of Grenier and Thibaudeau, both highly credible and convincing witnesses. [ 12 ] It is overwhelmingly clear, from the evidence adduced, that defendants are not liable in this matter. [ 13 ] The personal belongings which plaintiff left behind, and for which he is suing defendants, were worthless.

What is more, an independent witness stated that the premises looked like a hoarder’s abode, the clothes strewn about, containing mites and possibly bedbugs. [ 14 ] Contrary to what is stated in the demand letter and the application, there were no knives, no books, no electronics and no passport on the premises. As to the plants left behind, they were dead. [ 15 ] In

summary, whereas plaintiff presented no evidence to support his allegations, and given defendants’ credible testimony, the application must be denied. [ 16 ] It is important to underline that defendant Thibaudeau is clearly afraid of plaintiff as, on June 4, 2018, plaintiff threated to « kill (him), beat (him) up, rape (his) girlfriend and rape (him). » A police report was filed accordingly (« rapport d’incident », exhibit P- 3).

The disturbing language and violent and homicidal threats uttered by plaintiff, reported and described in detail in police report P-3, will not be cited at length herein. [ 17 ] As well, Grenier wrote the following in her contestation, that which she confirmed in her testimony : « À partir de cet instant, M. Lato a commencé à me harceler des dizaines d’appels par jour joints à des menaces de mort. Sans porter une plainte officielle, je me suis rendue dans un poste de police afin qu’un agent de police communique avec lui pour qu’il cesse tout harcèlement (ce qui fut fait).

Depuis, il m’a recontacté quelque fois toujours pour me menacer. » (contestation dated February 13, 2019) [ 18 ] WHEREAS plaintiff did not prove the facts alleged in his application, according to the preponderance of evidence ( articles 2803 and 2804 Civil Code of Québec ) ; [ 19 ] WHEREAS defendants did not commit the alleged faults, and are not liable towards plaintiff; WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiff's application; CONDEMNS plaintiff to pay defendant Anne Grenier judicial costs in the amount of $205.00. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q.

Dates of hearing: April 26 and September 8, 2021