2017 QCCQ 383, 2017 QCCQ 383

Kuric c. Westcliff Management Ltd. 2017 QCCQ 383 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-126736-117 DATE: January 20, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ZLATKO J. KURIC Plaintiff v. WESTCLIFF MANAGEMENT LTD.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On January 14, 2011, plaintiff filed an application against defendant, claiming that he had suffered $69,900.00 in damages, subsequently to a fall on its property, on July 14, 2004. [ 2 ] As this application was filed in the Small Claims Division, plaintiff voluntarily reduced the amount of his claim to $7,000.00. [ 3 ] At the outset, it is important to note that plaintiff filed an application related to exactly the same matter (identical cause of action and damages), on March 3, 2007 (file n° 500-32-103188-076, hereinafter “File A”). [ 4 ] In File A, judgment was rendered by default, on January 19, 2008, by the court clerk, ordering defendant to pay plaintiff $500.00 plus interest and costs (hereinafter “Judgment A”). [ 5 ] On December 1, 2008, plaintiff filed an application for revocation of Judgment A, which was denied, on December 2, 2008. [ 6 ] Plaintiff would later claim that Judgment A “was made as a result of reckless disregard for the truth, fraud“. [ 7 ] On November 29, 2016, during the hearing of the present matter, plaintiff declared that he was “royally abused by the system and by the court clerk” who rendered Judgment A.

He also declared that he reported the “court clerk to UPAC and the RCMP”, as he believes defendant and its insurers bribed said court clerk with a view to obtain Judgment A. [ 8 ] Plaintiff then filed another application, against defendant, on December 1, 2008 (file n° 500-32-113958-088, hereinafter “File B”), regarding the same matter, claiming $209.48 for “legal fees and other expenses”. His claim was dismissed by the Hon.

Suzanne Handman, on March 29, 2010 (hereinafter “Judgment B”). [ 9 ] Subsequently to Judgments A and B, plaintiff filed the present application. [ 10 ] A trial date was set for October 6, 2014; however, on September 22, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the undersigned’s recusation and a postponement. [ 11 ] On September 26, 2014, the undersigned rendered an interlocutory judgment dismissing both motions and ordering that the trial proceed on October 6, 2014.

[ 12 ] An avalanche of documents from plaintiff ensued. Copious letters to the coordinating judge and the court office were filed. Nonetheless, plaintiff failed to appear for trial, on October 6, 2014, and did not have a mandatary appear on his behalf. [ 13 ] At this time, the Court rendered another interlocutory judgment, from the bench, as follows: “ [1] Le 26 septembre 2014, le Tribunal rendait une décision rejetant la requête du demandeur demandant la récusation de la soussignée et la remise de l'audition prévue ce jour. Le Tribunal ordonnait alors que la cause soit entendue tel que prévu le 6 octobre 2014.

Suite à ce jugement, le greffe de la Cour a avisé le demandeur en conséquence. [2] Le demandeur a alors enchéri avec l'envoi de la note manuscrite suivante au bureau de l'honorable Louise Comeau, Juge coordonnatrice adjointe: « PS: Judge E. Marengo failed to address the main reasons why I demand her recusal from above captioned file. I do not accept her decision. Her judgement in my previous SCC file she also avoided to address the key points why I brought my claim against the Speedy Muffler. This is her second failure.

She will not be allowed to judge my current pending case. » [3] De plus, il a aussi transmis un soi-disant billet médical par télécopieur, lequel se lit comme suit: « Post herpetique neuralgique sévère (…) cannot stand up more 10 min. » (sic) [4] Le demandeur ne s'est pas présenté aujourd'hui, malgré qu'il ait été dûment convoqué et appelé. [5] Qui plus est, aucun mandataire n'est là pour le représenter ce matin, même si le greffe de la Cour l'a avisé de la nécessité de ce faire, dans les circonstances. [6] Le Tribunal n'accepte pas, comme preuve suffisante de l'incapacité médicale alléguée, la copie du document envoyée par télécopieur à ce titre. [7] Cependant, avant de se prononcer sur le fond, le Tribunal convoque les parties à se présenter à une date ultérieure à être déterminée par le Maître des rôles, afin qu'elles soient entendues sur le point suivant: à savoir si la demande en justice du demandeur est abusive au sens des articles 54.1 et suivants du Code de procédure civile.

PAR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL: RÉFÈRE le dossier au Maître des rôles pour la fixation d'une date d'audition, pour la continuation de cette affaire devant la soussignée. “ [ 14 ] Plaintiff continued to inundate the Court with documents comprised of hundreds upon hundreds of pages, and, on October 6, 2016, requested, in writing, that his file be transferred to the Civil Division of this Court, as he now wanted to increase the amount of his claim to $69,900.00, which was the amount specified in the Annex to his original statement of claim dated January 5, 2011. [ 15 ] On November 29, 2016, the Court proceeded to hear the parties on the question of abuse of procedure (articles 51ff.

C.C.P .). [ 16 ] Plaintiff stated that it was the Court who was abusing him, and not vice versa, and that the undersigned should therefore apologize to him. He stated that he had been abused by the court system, and, as above stated, that there was collusion between defendant, its insurers and the court clerk. He referred to Judgment A as a “fake judgment”.

He said that “Judges of the T.A.Q.” were against him, that the Bar of Quebec, the “T.A.Q.” and the “S.A.Q.” had treated him dishonestly, and that he had been manipulated by lawyers. [ 17 ] Plaintiff referred to himself as “a jurist” (in Croatia), an expert both in engineering and in human resources, “a better expert than any doctor in thrombosis” and “one of the best drivers in Canada”. [ 18 ] Furthermore, it should be noted that plaintiff has instituted other proceedings. The Court is aware of the following cases:

a) on February 8, 2007, in file n° 500-32-102552-074, he sued S.N.C. - Lavalin Inc, for $4,800.00, and lost;

b) on December 1, 2008, in file n° 500-32-113957-080, he sued a mechanic who repaired his car, for $546.23, and lost;

c) on August 5, 2009, in file n° 500-32-118366-097, he sued the Attorney General of Quebec, for $7,000.00, and lost;

d) on August 5, 2009, in file n° 500-32-118367-095, he sued McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Ltd, for $7,000.00, for food poisoning, and lost;

e) on December 8, 2010, in file n° 500-32-126304-106, he sued an employee of the City of Montreal, for $7,000.00, and lost. [ 19 ] It appears from the foregoing that plaintiff’s proceedings in the present case are abusive, and that plaintiff has all of the hallmark characteristics of a quarrelsome litigator: “ [2] Les critères pouvant donner ouverture à une déclaration de quérulence ont été définis par le juge Gascon, alors à la Cour supérieure, en ces termes : « Ces facteurs indicatifs se résument pour l'essentiel à ceci :

1º Le plaideur quérulent fait montre d'opiniâtreté et de narcissisme; 2º Il se manifeste généralement en demande plutôt qu'en défense; 3º Il multiplie les recours vexatoires, y compris contre les auxiliaires de la justice.

Il n'est pas rare que ses procédures et ses plaintes soient dirigées contre les avocats, le personnel judiciaire ou même les juges, avec allégations de partialité et plaintes déontologiques; 4º Il réitère les mêmes questions par des recours successifs et ampliatifs : la recherche du même résultat malgré les échecs répétés de demandes antérieures est fréquente; 5º Les arguments de droit mis de l'avant se signalent à la fois par leur inventivité et leur incongruité.

Ils ont une forme juridique certes, mais à la limite du rationnel; 6º Les échecs répétés des recours exercés entraînent à plus ou moins longue échéance son incapacité à payer les dépens et les frais de justice afférents; 7º La plupart des décisions adverses, sinon toutes, sont portées en appel ou font l'objet de demandes de révision ou de rétractation; 8º Il se représente seul; 9º Ses procédures sont souvent truffées d'insultes, d'attaques et d'injures. » [1] [ 20 ] As stated by the Hon. Joël A. Silcoff, J.S.C., in Maxant c.

Galati-Casullo : [2] “ [120] The right of access to the Courts for the purpose of asserting one’s rights and seeking redress when such rights are adversely affected is fundamental in a free and democratic society such as the one in which we are privileged to live. Such right, however, is subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law. It may not be exercised in bad faith or in an abusive, excessive or unreasonable manner. […] “ [ 21 ] It is the Court’s opinion that there is, in fact, abuse of procedures in the present instance: the demand is clearly unfounded, as there is « chose jugée ».

Furthermore, it appears from the barrage of documents filed into the court record, that plaintiff had all the medical information, on which he is basing his request to transfer the file, when he first reduced his $69,900.00 claim to $7,000.00. There would therefore be no justification to transfer the file to the Civil Division at this time. [ 22 ] Furthermore, plaintiff’s conduct is clearly quarrelsome.

One need only look at the steady bombardment of documents filed into the court record over time, despite the rendering of Judgments A and B. [ 23 ] The onslaught of demands by plaintiff to the Court and its staff is excessive and indefensible, and constitutes a nuisance to the defendant and the Court. Plaintiff cannot continue to monopolize the precious judicial resources of this Court in this manner.

WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiff’s motion to transfer; DISMISSES plaintiff’s application on the merits; DECLARES that there is abuse of procedure in the present matter, as the demand is clearly unfounded and plaintiff’s conduct is quarrelsome; CONDEMNS plaintiff to pay defendant’s judicial fees in the amount of $194.00; and PROHIBITS plaintiff from instituting legal proceedings before the Court of Quebec except with the authorization of and subject to the conditions determined by the chief justice. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q.

Dates of hearings: October 6, 2014 and November 29, 2016.