2015 QCCQ 5150, 2015 QCCQ 5150

Koniarska c. Académie internationale des hautes études en soins esthétiques Compétence Beauté ltée 2015 QCCQ 5150 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL "Civil Division" No: 500-32-133384-125 DATE: May 27, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ RENATA KONIARSKA Plaintiff v.

L’ACADÉMIE INTERNATIONALE DES HAUTES ÉTUDES EN SOINS ESTHÉTIQUES COMPÉTENCE BEAUTÉ LTÉE and GINETTE LAFRANCE, doing business under the name of ACADÉMIE INTERNATIONALE COMPÉTENCE BEAUTÉ LTÉE and MAUDE LAFRANCE-PATRY, doing business under the name of ACADÉMIE INTERNATIONALE COMPÉTENCE BEAUTÉ LTÉE Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Following the hearing and once the case had been put under advisement, the Plaintiff forwarded to the Court a Declaration d’une cause de récusation . [ 2 ] In this Motion, the Plaintiff raises two grounds and asks that the Court recuse itself. [ 3 ] First, the Plaintiff argues that the undersigned knew a witness called by the Defendant, Mr.

Leopold Bissonette. [ 4 ] At the opening of the hearing, when the undersigned realised that Mr.

Bissonette had been called as a witness, the undersigned informed the parties that he had been her hairdresser, for approximately four years, but this relationship had ceased approximately four years before the hearing. [ 5 ] The undersigned informed the parties that she did not consider this situation to be a ground for recusation, but that the parties could ask that she recuse herself if the parties were uncomfortable. [ 6 ] The Plaintiff immediately stated she did not object and that the undersigned did not have to recuse herself. [ 7 ] In any event, Mr.

Bissonnette never testified. [ 8 ] The second ground raised by the Plaintiff is that the Court refused to hear the two witnesses called by the Plaintiff. [ 9 ] The Plaintiff presented her case over a period of approximately two hours. After her testimony, the Court asked what was the object of the testimony of these two witnesses, following which, the Court determined that their testimonies were not needed. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Motion. __________________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q.