2021 QCCQ 5727, 2021 QCCQ 5727

Turcot c. Gingras 2021 QCCQ 5727 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-159348-186 et 500-32-159786-195 DATE: July 9, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY JUDGE HENRI RICHARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ N° : 500-32-159348-186 Daniel Turcot Plaintiff v.

Pierre Gingras Defendant and N° : 500-32-159786-195 Daniel Turcot Plaintiff v. bill thompson Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Beginning in August and September 2018, Daniel Turcot, Pierre Gingras and Bill Thompson were roommates in a building located in Baie-d'Urfé. [ 2 ] Daniel Turcot is claiming $15,000 from Mr. Gingras and $15,000 from Mr.

Thompson based on the following allegations: File Pierre Gingras (500-32-159348-186): « Pierre Gingras has been threatening, making my life condition miserable, I am scared for my safety. I have suffered loss of money, depression, stress, anxiety and way of life. » File Bill Thompson (500-32-159786-195): « False criminal accusation, missing food, loss of enjoyment of life, causing stress and anxiety and depression. » [ 3 ] In civil law, the burden of proof is on Plaintiff’s shoulders in accordance with the principle provided for in

article 2803 of the Civil Code of Quebec ( C.C.Q. ) which states “A person seeking to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based” . [ 4 ] The Court must weigh the probabilities pursuant to

article 2804 C.C.Q. which states “Evidence is sufficient if it renders the existence of a fact more probable than its non-existence” . In other words, the Court must establish what is more probable and likely. [ 5 ] The Court is patient and actively listens to Mr. Turcot. Despite all the attention given to his testimony, the Court finds no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Gingras and Mr. Thompson. The same is true with respect to the damages he claims from each of them of $15,000. [ 6 ] In law, it is not enough to allege damages, they must be proven. Mr.

Turcot has failed to prove any damages whatsoever, in particular moral damages related to the stress, anxiety and depression for which Mr. Gingras and Mr. Thompson are allegedly responsible. [ 7 ] On the contrary, the evidence shows that Mr. Turcot is an aggressive, impulsive and uncontrollable person. For several years, Mr. Turcot has been a regular client of social services and the justice system, particularly in that he has been the subject of at least 45 criminal cases. [ 8 ] The present cases are also part of a series of cases that the Court is hearing in which Mr. Turcot is the Plaintiff.

In all of these cases, Mr. Turcot is claiming $15,000 from the defendants for "stress, anxiety, depression and embarrassment" and never establishes the actual damages suffered. Instead, he makes vague, unsubstantiated allegations about his damages. The relevance of the judgment rendered on June 11, 2019 by Judge Céline Gervais, in Turcot v. Restaurants MH Inc. (Mc Donald's) [1] , which declares Mr. Turcot a

querulous litigant. Unfortunately, this judgment does not have retroactive effect for the present files and all the others that the Court hears during four days in the week of June 28, 2021. [ 9 ] In the present files, the evidence shows that Mr. Turcot is rude, harsh and uses foul language towards Mr. Gingras and Mr. Thompson. [ 10 ] The testimony of Mr. Gingras and Mr. Thompson leaves no doubt as to the climate of discomfort, even terror, that Mr. Turcot creates when they are his roommates. [ 11 ] The evidence also shows that Mr. Turcot uses technological means to constantly communicate with Mr. Gingras and Mr.

Thompson in a campaign of harassment that is unnecessary, childish, abusive and wrongful. [ 12 ] It is obvious that Mr. Turcot is using the courts to continue his campaign of abuse and harassment against Mr. Gingras and Mr. Thompson. [ 13 ] As a result of the absence of proof of fault committed by Mr. Gingras and Mr. Thompson with respect to Mr. Turcot and the total absence of proof of damages actually suffered, the Court concludes that Mr. Turcot's claims are unfounded in fact and in law.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: File Pierre Gingras (500-32-159348-186): DISMISSES Daniel Turcot’s application against Pierre Gingras; CONDEMNS Daniel Turcot’s to pay Pierre Gingras $202 as legal costs. FilE Bill Thompson (500-32-159786-195): DISMISSES Daniel Turcot’s application against Bill Thompson; CONDEMNS Daniel Turcot’s to pay Bill Thompson $205 as legal costs. Henri Richard, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: June 30, 2021