2015 QCCQ 3694, 2015 QCCQ 3694

Levine c. Montréal (Ville de) 2015 QCCQ 3694 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL No: 500-32-132751-126 DATE: April 14, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MURRAY LEVINE Plaintiff v.

VILLE DE MONTRÉAL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Murray Levine claims $999.00 from the city of Montréal pursuant to his participation in question period at the City Council meetings held in December 2011 and January 2012. [ 2 ] The City contends that Mr Levine’s interventions at City Council were contrary to the Cities and Towns Act [1] and a Bylaw of the City of Montreal [2] . His claim therefore is groundless. THE FACTS [ 3 ] The facts are not contested.

Mr Levine testified and did not attempt to contradict the testimony of Mr. Harout Chitilian, Chairman of City Council [3] . [ 4 ] On December 20, 2011, at a City Council meeting, Mr Levine asked a question of Mr Marvin Rotrand, City Councillor.

Mr Levine was following up on an earlier exchange of emails between the two of them. [ 5 ] Mr Rotrand did not answer the question but rather responded by reading part of a recent email from Mr Levine and, according to Mr Levine’s opinion, “made a speech” concluding that he viewed the email to be a “veiled threat”. [ 6 ] Mr Levine admits having responded, in open City Council, to Mr Rotrand’s intervention by saying “Ahhh. Kiss mine.” [ 7 ] The Chairman of City Council, Mr Chitilain ordered Mr Levine to leave the meeting and he did.

Further, the Chairman advised Mr Levine that he would not be allowed to participate in question period until he had apologized in writing. [ 8 ] Mr Levine stated then, and repeated it at trial, that he refused to apologize to “a liar”. [ 9 ] On January 24, 2012, since he had not yet apologized, Mr Levine was again refused permission to participate in question period, by the Chairman.

Mr Levine left the Council meeting without asking his question. [ 10 ] A few days later, Mr Levine sent a written apology acceptable to the Chairman and was allowed to participate once again at City Council as of the March 2012 meeting. [ 11 ] Mr Levine alleges that the Chairman committed a fault by allowing Mr Rotrand to make a speech on December 20, 2012. Further, both of Mr Chitilian’s decisions to refuse him participation in question period were “illegal”.

Mr Levine argues that such restrictions to his freedom of speech have caused him damages and inconvenience. [ 12 ] Mr Levine claims $999.00 because the legal stamp required for his application was the same price for any claim under $1000.00. However, his only evidence in support of his damages is for lost time “on December 20 and January 24”, mileage and miscellaneous disbursements for a total of $60.14. DECISION [ 13 ] The acts of Mr Rotrand and Mr Chitilain are legally justified under the Cities and Towns Act as well as the Bylaw .

[ 14 ] The evidence is abundantly clear that Mr Levine’s behaviour at the December 20, 2011 City Council meeting was indecorous, to say the least. This contravenes both articles 3 and 46 of the Bylaw : 3. Pendant l’assemblée, le public est admis dans les tribunes et, lors de la période de questions qui lui est réservée, à l’endroit du parquet prévu à cette fin. Toute personne admise dans les tribunes doit garder le silence et s’abstenir de troubler l’ordre ou le décorum .

Nul ne peut faire usage d’un appareil photographique ou enregistrer par quelque moyen que ce soit les séances du conseil, sans l’autorisation préalable du président. […] 46. La personne qui pose une question doit éviter les allusions personnelles, les insinuations, les paroles violentes, blessantes ou irrespectueuses à l’égard de qui que ce soit, les expressions et les tournures non parlementaires ou de désigner le président autrement que par son

titre . (Emphases added) [ 15 ] The apparent refusal on the part of Mr Rotrand to answer Mr Levine’s question is legally justified: 41.

Un membre du conseil auquel une question est posée ou le membre du conseil qu’il désigne pour y répondre peut refuser d’y répondre : 1 o s’il juge contraire à l’intérêt public de fournir les renseignements demandés; 2 o si les renseignements demandés ne peuvent être colligés qu’à la suite d’un travail considérable ne correspondant pas à leur utilité; 3 o si la question porte sur les travaux d’une commission dont le rapport n’a pas été déposé au conseil; 4 o si la question a déjà été posée ou si elle porte sur un point à l’ordre du jour de l’assemblée en cours; 5 o si la question porte sur une cause pendante devant un tribunal ou un organisme administratif ou sur un sujet faisant l’objet d’une enquête; 6 o sans donner de raison .

Le refus de répondre à une question sans donner de raison ne peut être discuté . (Emphases added) [ 16 ] The chairman’s decisions to exclude Mr Levine from participation in the question period in December 2011 and January 2012 are also justified. Articles 332 of the Cites and Towns Act states: 332. The mayor or any person presiding in his place shall maintain order and decorum during the sittings of the council. He may order that any person disturbing a sitting of the council be removed from the place where the sitting is held. (Emphases added) [ 17 ] As well,

article 50 of the Bylaw states: 50. Le président peut retirer le droit de parole à quiconque pose une question sans respecter le présent règlement . (Emphases added) [ 18 ] The Court concludes that no fault whatsoever has been proven by Mr Levine and his application must fail. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES the application, with costs. __________________________________ SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q.

Date of hearing: 24 mars 2015