2021 QCCQ 9015, 2021 QCCQ 9015

Aziz c. Masssier 2021 QCCQ 9015 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-159526-195 500-32-162033-205 500-32-162034-203 DATE: September 22, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ 500-32-159526-195 Karim AZIZ Plaintiff v. Ronald MASSIER Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ 500-32- 162033-205 Karim AZIZ Plaintiff v.

Ville de Montréal -and- Service de police de la Ville de Montréal -and- Anthony MADORE -and- Simon BLAIS FAFARD -and- Bruce KAHN -and- Stéphanie MARCHAND -and- Mélanie THIBERT LEDUC -and- Montreal Municipal Court Crown Attorney -and- Mylène BERGERON -and- Nicolas ROUSSEAU -and- Procureur Général du Canada -and- Richard ESPINOS Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ 500-32-162034-203 Karim AZIZ Plaintiff v.

Ville de Montréal -and- Service de police de la Ville de Montréal -and- Bruce KAHN -and- Montreal Municipal Court Crown Attorney -and- Mylène BERGERON -and- Nicolas ROUSSEAU

Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] These three cases came before the Court by way of case management. The Plaintiff, Karim Aziz, brought an application to have the second and third files joined with the first file.

He also made an application for the appointment of an expert counsel. [ 2 ] Defendants in the second and third files brought applications for dismissal of the cases against them based, among other grounds, on the abusive character of the actions. [ 3 ] A hearing was held before the undersigned on July 16, 2021, on the applications for dismissal.

The other matters were not dealt with, it being logical to decide first if the actions in the second and third files would be dismissed. [ 4 ] At that hearing, the Court decided both on the application raised by the three parties presenting and, of its own motion, that the criterion of

article 52 C.P.C. was met, namely that the proceedings brought by Mr. Aziz in the second and third files “may constitute an abuse of proceedings”. The onus was then on Mr. Aziz to show that his proceedings were not excessive or unreasonable and that they were justified in law. [ 5 ] The Court made every effort to impress upon Mr. Aziz that the matter was serious and required a substantial presentation on his part, offering a continuation of the hearing at a later date to permit him to have the necessary time. Normally the hearing would have ended at 12:30 p.m. Mr.

Aziz insisted upon proceeding immediately. [ 6 ] The clerk noted in the minutes of hearing at 12:14 p.m. Mr. Aziz informs the Court that he does not require an additional hearing to which the Court replies that today’s hearing can only continue for the next 10 minutes. The Court repeats the offer to

schedule a second hearing so that Mr. Aziz be given one half-day of Court time to show that the applications and proceedings are not an abuse, i.e. that they are not excessive or unreasonable and are justified in law. [ 7 ] As the day progressed, he was given successively additional periods speaking for more than two hours. He provided additional written material without permission of the Court on July 21 and 22 and on August 1, 2021.

The final email dated August 1, begins with the following passage: I would like request that you consider the following: Subject: Red herring meaning : ( ploy. attention-grabber, bait, diversionary tactic; wild-goose chase ) A legal or factual issue that is irrelevant and is used to divert attention away from the main issues of a case.

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. [sic] […] [*] [ 8 ] The Court will turn now to the form and substance of the matter at hand. [ 9 ] The matter as a whole arises after an incident that occurred on August 28, 2017 at a Tim Hortons franchise in Montreal. The incident consisted in an altercation between Mr. Aziz and Mr. Massier (also referred to as Ronald Massi), the latter being an employee of the restaurant. The first case had a long and complex history, beginning in Superior Court in file number 500-17-101172-172 involving a number of defendants.

After many permutations, it was transferred to the Court of Quebec and eventually to the Small Claims division. In its final iteration, all parties in defense except Mr. Massier have been removed and it is now a matter just between Messrs. Aziz and Massier. This case was to proceed to trial in May of 2019. The trial did not take place in the context where Mr. Aziz had left the country and is to be rescheduled now that he has returned. The Court has reserved November 8 and 9, 2021. [ 10 ] The second and third files have their source in the same incidents.

A multitude of parties are brought in as defendants, the cause of action being connected as well with the criminal proceedings that ensued after the altercation. The application to dismiss of the City of Montreal [ 11 ] To the extent that the City of Montreal alleges prescription, the case cannot simply be dismissed on the basis of that allegation. Mr.

Aziz brought a detailed opposition (approximately 40 pages, sent multiple times) to the application attempting to show, on a factual basis, that he was under an impossibility to act because of psychiatric conditions 1 which resulted in his hospitalisation in Iran, the impossibility to leave Iran because of difficulties with his travel documents and, finally, when those difficulties were overcome, the impossibility to travel back to Canada because of the COVID-19 crisis. The dates add up in such a way that it would be necessary to

consider the entire narrative of his journey and the nature and extent of impairment of his mental state when in Iran in order to determine whether, as a question of fact, he was truly in a situation of impossibility to act in not bringing the new cases more quickly. [ 12 ] An aspect of this would be expert evidence of his mental illness which according to Mr. Aziz’s own allegations, would have resulted in an impossibility to act. [ 13 ] During the hearing of the applications, Mr. Aziz spoke about how he is, in a sense, tormented by the case.

It requires him to stay in Montreal when he would prefer leaving for another part of Canada. He wants the matter to be dealt with as quickly as possible. [ 14 ] In the course of the hearing he stated his wish to withdraw the application to join the new cases with the existing case that is presently before the Court. The Court did not accept the withdrawal considering it to be premature at this stage where the dismissal of the new proceedings is the issue.

The Court did not proceed either on his application to have a court-appointed expert, for the same reason. [ 15 ] In making its preliminary finding that the new cases may constitute an abuse, the Court was mindful of the quarrelsome nature of the Plaintiff’s proceedings. On several parameters, the legal proceedings are excessive and unreasonable. On the simple appearance of the drafting, the reader is astounded by the prolix, redundant, rhetorically exaggerated and improper form of the proceedings. For example on page 18 of the proceedings in case number 500-32-162033-205, Mr.

Aziz seeks to make the point that, in his discussions with one of the defendants, Sergeant Detective Bruce Kahn, the latter was only willing to charge Mr. Massier with simple assault rather than assault with bodily harm. [ 16 ] The point being that the reasons given by Sergeant Detective Kahn were “irrational and illogical”, Mr. Aziz reproduces images in the form of internet memes replicating content from the 1960’s television series Star Trek showing the well-known character Mr. Spock in conversation with other characters, notably Captain Kirk, on issues of logic and the tendency of humans to use fallacies.

This part of the introductory motion is a variation on passages occurring in the original application made in Superior Court in what is now 500-32-159526-195. In many of its essentials, the new action in case number 500-32-162033-205 is a reiteration of the allegations of the previous case. [ 17 ] That previous case began with an opening paragraph that reads as follows: Plaintiff’s Claim – (Lawsuit) & or originating application 1. Following visual illustrations, images, and examples submitted in an effort and hope and in order to get Mr.

Aziz message across effectively to the reader of this civil claim to better understand and comprehend Mr. Aziz case and situation & point of view, and they are very relevant to the facts of Mr.

Aziz claim on the issues and subject of devil in disguise , and psychopath behavior, and Hyena, wild dangerous vicious animal, bullies, bulling [sic], belittling, thugs, hoodlum , and vigilantism & vigilante street justice : [ 18 ] Following that introduction and before the narrative of the case begins are 10 pages of annotated illustrations on various subjects such as hypocrisy, integrity, the devil, psychopathy, hyenas, bullying, vigilante justice and acts of public humiliation. [ 19 ] The following extracts from the new version of the allegations illustrates in the nature and quality of the drafting: 29 .

That on Friday, October-6-2017, Montreal police s ergeant detective Bruce Kahn, badge No. 1916 , charged Ronald Massi, with criminal offense of simple assault on Mr. Aziz, under

Article 265 , of the Criminal Code of Canada . That on Friday, October-6-2017, Mr. Aziz was outraged protested and objected to the fact that sergeant detective Bruce Kahn, badge No. 1916 , had decided to charge Ronald Massi , only with simple assault, where in fact he assaulted Mr. Aziz and had caused obvious & indisputable bodily harm to Mr. Aziz, so Mr. Aziz asked sergeant detective Bruce Kahn, why Ronald Massi, is not charged with more serious assault under

Article 267. Assault causing bodily harm. That to Mr. Aziz surprise and astonishment & shock, sergeant detective Bruce Kahn, simply told M. Aziz that he does not go by bodily harm

Definitions &

Interpretation according to the criminal code of Canada, Criminal Code , R.S., c. C-34, s. 1.-R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. Sergeant detective Bruce Kahn, also told Mr. Aziz that he is applying the bodily harm definition &

interpretation according to the internal policy of the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal , and not bodily harm Definition &

Interpretation according to the criminal code of Canada, R.S., c. C-34, s. 1.-R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. Sergeant detective Bruce Kahn, conduct and action with regard to the bodily harm

Definitions &

Interpretation was totally illogical , ridiculous, , absurd & very odd and strange, weird, bizarre, unusual, and incorrect and very unfair, and illegal which it did not make any common sense at all. See the following illustration, image from the 1960’s TV movie series “Star Trek”, in which “Mr. Spock” quotes the subject and issue of the “irrational and illogical”, are stated here because they are relevant to this situation with regard to the SPVM detective Bruce Kahn, So the following illustration, “Mr.

Spock” quotes are used in this case as an example of the “ irrational and illogical” “thought process” of the SPVM detective Bruce Kahn , in other word, SPVM detective Bruce Kahn , logical fallacy are all based on biased and prejudicial and faulty reasoning, false belief, misleading and deceptive and erroneousness and unsound arguments as he denied the plaintiff his rights throughout the entire process and every step of the way.

As an examples of these illogical thougt [sic] process see below: Moreover In short, and in a nutshell, all described conducts and actions and inaction and errors and omissions by the defendants were constitutes as vengeance, reprisal, retribution, retaliation, vendetta, grudge, hostility, a revenge, specially by manager

Mylene Bergeron, against the plaintiff, because (SPVM investigator detective Bruce Kahn) and Mylene Bergeron, they did not like it at all, that the plaintiff’s actions and conducts for being persistent in pressing (SPVM investigators detectives Bruce Kahn), and Mylene Bergeron, to do their jobs and duty expeditiously and correctly and he (SPVM investigator detective Bruce Kahn) clearly had serous [sic] resentment, grudge, and seriously dislike the plaintiff.

That SPVM detective Bruce Kahn, unreasonably begin to dislike and have serious resentment, grudge, and acting biased and prejudicial, discriminatory, detrimental, adverse, hurtful, harmful, against the plaintiff, and became very hostile, aggressive and belligerent and antagonistic, and combative against the plaintiff, and unreasonably wrongfully treated the plaintiff as enemy rather than victim of assault causing bodily harm and injury, and that is the reasons for (SPVM investigator detective Bruce Kahn) acted prejudicially and biased against plaintiff and acting in such way as a vendetta, grudge, hostility, a revenge and to get even with the plaintiff, and that is the reason they wrongfully charged the plaintiff with the fraudulent, unfounded, vexatious and malicious criminal accusation and prosecution, and as result caused the plaintiff to sustained substantial moral and material harm and prejudices and damages, humiliation, anxiety, stress and panicked attacks and pain and suffering and loss and which plaintiff claiming monetary compensation from the above names defendants. [sic] [five “memes” representing the character Mr.

Spock] [ 20 ] But it is not only the rhetoric, the style and the inclusion of images from popular culture using the device of the meme that is irregular and excessive. The true essence of the conflict is litigation between two individuals who were involved in a minor altercation. One or both may have committed an extra-contractual fault during that brief event causing prejudice. The case that is to be heard in November is the remainder, reduced to its essential core case, and brought within the moderate and simple process of the Small Claims Division, of the much more complex case that had been initiated.

The case that remains can be managed, heard and decided despite the prolix nature of the allegations because the Court met with the parties in case management on December 6, 2018 to plan the trial, arriving at a joinder of issues through an oral process. At that point, the matter was crystallized as an action in damages in the amount of $ 14, 000 with Mr. Massier bringing a counter claim of $ 4,000 in damages against Mr. Aziz.

This is an extremely circumscribed case in which most of the written material is not essential. [ 21 ] But now the larger case, full of its excesses, has re-emerged in the form of the second and third cases listed in the style of cause, reintroducing as defendants persons related to the Tim Hortons franchise, the police (five individuals and the SPVM service itself), the city of Montreal, the staff prosecutor and the ad hoc prosecutor, as well as the prosecutorial office, witness, and even the Attorney General of Canada. [ 22 ] Some excerpts of the allegations are provided as examples of the tangential and conjectural narrative: 32 .

That on November-7-2017, with regard to the police report no. MTLEV 1700867040, August-28-2017, incident at the Tim Horton coffee shop, Montreal municipal court crown attorney prosecutor office correctly overruled Montreal police sergeant detective Bruce Kahn, request to charge Ronald Massi, with simple assault, and in instead Montreal municipal court crown attorney prosecutor office lay criminal charge of assault causing bodily harm on Mr. Aziz, on August-28-2017, under

section 267

b) of criminal code of Canada. That on October-6-2017, with regard to the police report no. MTLEV 1700817533, August028-2017, incident at the Tim Horton coffee shop, Montreal police sergeant detective Bruce Kahn, without any Independent Corroborating Evidence, & without reasonable and probable cause and also without any cogency and without first reviewing and analysis and without any scrutiny unlawfully and falsely and unjustly & vexatiously laid criminal charge against Mr. Aziz with the simple assault under 266 (

b) C.C.C. That on November-7-2017, with regard to the police report no. MTLEV 1700817533, August-28-2017, incident at the Tim Horton coffee shop, Montreal municipal court crown attorney prosecutor office overruled Montreal police sergeant detective Bruce Kahn, request to charge Mr. Aziz with simple assault under

section 266(b), and in instead Montreal municipal court crown attorney prosecutor office with-out [sic] any Independent Corroborating Evidence, and without reasonable grounds & also with-out [sic] reasonable and probable cause, falsely authorized Laying two (2) frivolous & vexatious criminal mischief charge against Mr. Aziz under section 430 (1) a)(4) b). & 430 (1) c) (4) b). C.C.C.,. Moreover, Mr.

Aziz states that this illegal & wrongful action by the Montreal municipal court crown attorney prosecutor office it is an abuse and or misuse of possession and power and authority & false criminal prosecution & abuse of legal process & malicious vexatious prosecution for frivolous criminal charges against Mr. Aziz. 33 . Moreover, Montreal municipal court crown attorney prosecutor office, has fails to explain the proof of the offence of criminal mischief, for example the documentary proof that was given to Mr.

Aziz, is lacking and missing the following important proof: Proof of Offence The Montreal municipal court crown attorney prosecutor office are unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt as part of its case under section 430 (1) a), &, 430

(1) c) of C.C.C ., with Independent Corroborating Evidence, that Mr. Aziz willfully committed the offence . The Montreal municipal court crown attorney prosecutor office does not have any Independent Corroborating Evidence in their case against Mr. Aziz. 1. How Mr. Aziz damaged the property (eye glasses) ? . 2. The exact manner in which the damage occurred ? . 3. the damage was willfully or recklessly ? . 4. the state of the property (eye glasses) before damage with documentary proof and picture, & damaged eye-witness. ?.

5. the state of the property (eye glasses) after damage with documentary proof and picture, & damaged eye glasses , & eye-witness. ? 6. Proof of ownership & value of property (eye glasses) damaged with the documentary proof – purchase bill of sale ? The Montreal municipal court crown attorney prosecutor office are unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt as part of its caseunder section 430

(1) c) of C.C.C. with Independent Corroborating Evidence, that exactly How Mr. Aziz obstructs, interrupts orinterferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property, in the Tim Hortons coffee shop in a very short time that he was at theTim Hortons coffee shop on August-28-2017. 34.

Also that the SPVM police officer Anthony Madore and Simon blais-Favard on August-28-2017, who originally intervenewrongfully, and fraudulently and negligently were convinced that the plaintiff was at fault and that they wrongfully and fraudulentlyblamed the plaintiff and falsely accused the plaintiff if attacking the employer of Tim Horton coffee shop, and because of this wrongfuland false and fraudulent belief, they fraudulently filed a false and fraudulent police report, and falsely and fraudulently indicating topolice investigator detective that plaintiff was to blame, also intentionally and wrongfully and fraudulently changed the statement ofwitness Emily Woodworth, female employee of Tim Hortons coffee shop on the police report that they filed and submitted on Aug-28-2017, and therefore SPVM investigators detective had wrongfully tunnel vision about the case and incident.

Video evidence of August-28-2017 plus eye-witness testimony and statement contradict what the police officers stated in police report,police officer write false and fraudulent police report and clearly lied on the police report of August-28-2017.

Also it is when SPVM police have the evidence that the case does not fit with the theory of the case. so, the SPVM investigatorsdetectives bend it the evidence and wrongfully and negligently and knowingly and fraudulently choose not to consider all evidences andwrongfully disregarded evidence and testimony of witness Emily Woodworth, which clearly corroborated by video evidence.

Also, even though and despite of the fact that SPVM investigator detectives had an eye-witness Emily Woodworth statement and also thevideo evidence of the incident, the said named SPVM investigators detectives were still prejudicially and falsely and fraudulently andwrongfully were convinced themselves that the plaintiff was the problem. [sic] [23] Mr. Aziz was given the opportunity to demonstrate that the case should continue, as is provided at

article 52 C.P.C. Mr. Azizspoke for several hours. His presentation was thorough, but he did not provide an argument that would reverse the Court’s convictionthat the new proceedings, taken as a whole, constitute an abuse. The appropriate remedy is to simply dismiss the proceedings at thepresent state. [24] At this late date, when parties are drawn back into a conjectural case based on hyperbole and exaggerated rhetoric, it wouldconstitute an unreasonable prejudice for these parties to have to endure a trial, even in the

summary process of the Small ClaimsDivision. This would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. [25] The Court will now deal with the specific points raised by the Defendants Mtre Nicolas Rousseau and Richard Espinos. The application to dismiss of the Defendant Nicolas Rousseau (case no: 500-32-162034-203) [26] Mtre Nicolas Rousseau acted as “procureur ad hoc” for the City of Montreal in a case brought against Mr. Aziz in file118 042 746 in the Montreal Municipal Court inter alia for an infraction pursuant to article 145 (5.1) b), a breach of condition in thecontext of the

summary infraction offences brought against Mr. Aziz in connection with the altercation. Mr. Aziz was accused of havingbeen on the site of the Tim Hortons were the altercation had occurred and where Mr. Massier worked, contrary to his promise made as acondition to his release pending the trial. Mr.

Aziz was acquitted of the offence on the ground that he lacked criminal intent, beingconvinced that he had not promised not to look through the window of the commerce, he had promised not to be at the commerce. [27] Mtre Rousseau correctly argues in the application presently before the Court that the third and fourth criteria for a wrongfulprosecution as defined in the jurisprudence, Nelles c. Ontario (CSC) and Popovic c.

Montreal (Ville de), 2008 QCCA2371 are, patently, not present here, namely the absence of reasonable and probable grounds for the application and the maliciousintention of the prosecutor or that he acted for an illegitimate motive. [28] It appears from the judgment of acquittal that the defense, based on an absence of mens rea came out of the defendant’stestimony which established that defense. The evidentiary material was extraneous to the factual elements of the prosecution, and itwould not have been the role of the prosecutor to know of them and to evaluate them.

The prosecutor had an arguable case becausepeering through the window of the commerce could be considered as being tantamount to being at the commerce. The relevant portionof the judgement rendered orally on October 16, 2018 of the Honorable Martine Leclerc j.c.m. reads as follows:

(17) Now, regarding the breach of condition - again, when the accused testified upon that offense, the prosecutor asked no question incross-examination. So, the testimony of the accused was never contradicted. The accused testified to the effect that, because there was noradius forbidding him to near the Tim Horton, he thought that he was allowed to go in front of the restaurant to look through the window.If it’s not the way the accused understood the condition, and if not unreasonable to think that way, he never then breached the saidcondition.

In light of everything that was said before, the accused is also acquitted of the breach of condition. [29] Mr. Aziz’s allegations in respect of attorney Rousseau, when the rather quarrelsome rhetoric is stripped away, amounts to anallegation of conduct falling short of the standard of conduct of a crown attorney and not allegations amounting to malicious prosecution.We read in paragraph 13 of the originating application: 13. That, in a nutshell, defendants SPVM detective Bruce Kahn, and also crown attorney Mylene Bergeron, and Nicolas

Rousseau, wrongfully and negligently failed to practice their professional job and duty and also their conducts fell below the standard of conduct and duty and care required as police detective and crown attorney prosecutor, thus as a result they prejudice and caused damages to the legal rights of the plaintiff. [ 30 ] The idea of Mr. Aziz’s case is that the prosecuting attorney should be found to have acted abusively.

The rhetoric referring to the elements of a malicious prosecution is present, albeit in a way that is very exaggerated and excessive, but the case has no reasonable chance of success, not being founded in law on the two essential criteria identified by Me Rousseau in his argument. The case against attorney Rousseau should be dismissed. The application to dismiss of Richard Espinos in (case number 500-32-162033-205) [ 31 ] Mr. Espinos was one of the original defendants in the first case, brought in file number 500-17-101172-172, which is now case number 500-32-159526-195.

Insofar as he was concerned, the case ended in a settlement, homologated by the Superior Court on March 19, 2018. That homologation resisted the contestation that followed, including that taking place in the Court of Appeal. This was a settlement whereby Mr. Espinos, Alexandria Dass and 7252617 Canada Inc. settled for a full and final payment of $ 1,000. Ms. Dass and Mr.

Espinos were directors of 7252617 Canada Inc. which was the franchisee of the Tim Hortons restaurant where the events occurred. [ 32 ] The new version of the lawsuit, 500-32-162033-205 is, fundamentally, the same case insofar as Espinos is concerned: he had a role of administrator of the franchisee operating the Tim Horton restaurant where the altercation occurred. The homologated transaction creates a res judicata and the new iteration of the same claim is, at first blush, therefore ill-founded in law. [ 33 ] Mr.

Aziz points out, however that there would be a new element that would found a cause of action that was not part of the original claim.

He alleges at paragraph 35 of the originating application that there was tampering with the video evidence coming from the security camera in the restaurant: 35. following named defendants, SPVM detectives investigators, Bruce Kahn, Stephanie Marchand, Melanie Thibert-Leduc, all three police investigators wrongfully, negligently failed to detect tempering with the video evidence (security surveillance video camera evidence of Tim Horton’s coffee shop), and so this constitutes faults and negligence on the part of said named SPVM police investigator detectives, and which as result plaintiff has received damages and prejudice.

And moreover either the said named SPVM detectives investigators Bruce Kahn, Stephanie Marchand, Melanie Thibert-Leduc, did tempering and deleting the video evidence them-selves, or it was done by Richard Espinos the manager and the owner of the Tim Horton’s coffee shop and given to the police, and which SPVM detective investigators, and also crown attorney prosecutor manager Mylene Bergeron, and crown attorney prosecutor Nicolas Rousseau, negligently and wrongfully failed to pinpoint and to detect the tempering. either way SPVM detectives investigators, also and also crown attorney prosecutor manager Mylene Bergeron, and crown attorney prosecutor Nicolas Rousseau, were negligent and are at fault, and which general liability of the

Article 1457 of the civil code of Quebec clearly and correctly applies and is relevant in this situation. That said named SPVM detectives and police officers wrongfully and negligently failed to properly review video taped evidence, and also had they properly review all of the video tape evidence, they would easily learn that the plaintiff was the victim and that also video taped evidence was tempered, altered, deleted by the general manager and the owner of Tim Horton’s coffee shop. 36 .

In short, and in a nutshell, all described conducts and actions and inaction and errors and omissions by the defendants were constitutes as vengeance, retribution, vendetta, grudge, hostility, a revenge, specially by the said mentioned named SPVM investigator detective Bruce Kahn and crown attorney prosecutor manager Mylene Bergeron , against the plaintiff, because (SPVM investigator detective Bruce Kahn) and Mylene Bergeron , they did not like it at all, that the plaintiff’s action and conducts for being persistent in pressing (SPVM investigators detectives Bruce Kahn), and Mylene Bergeron, to do their jobs and duty expeditiously and correctly and he (SPVM investigator detective Bruce Kahn) clearly had serous resentment, grudge and seriously dislike the plaintiff .

That SPVM detective Bruce Kahn, unreasonably begin to dislike and have serious resentment, grudge, and acting bias and prejudicial, discriminatory, detrimental, adverse, hurtful, harmful, against the plaintiff, and unreasonably wrongfully trated the plaintiff as enemy rather that victim of assault causing bodily harm and injury, and that is the reasons for (SPVM investigator detective Bruce Kahn) acted prejudicially and biased against plaintiff, and that is the reason they wrongfully charge the plaintiff with the fraudulent unfounded, vexatious and malicious criminal accusation and prosecution , and as result caused the plaintiff to sustained substantial moral and material harm and prejudices and damages, humiliation, anxiety, stress and panicked attacks and pain and suffering and loss and which plaintiff claiming monetary compensation from the above named defendants. [sic] [ 34 ] Mr.

Aziz and his opponent, Mr. Massier, faced crossed charges for

summary conviction offences as an outcome of their altercation. Mr. Aziz was acquitted and Mr. Massier pleaded guilty. The creation of the newest version of the lawsuit, which brings Mr. Espinos back into the case several years after he settled for a nominal amount, is abusive. The allegations set out in these two paragraphs illustrate the generally quarrelsome character of the case. The allegation against Mr. Espinos, made in the alternative, (“[…] or it was done by Richard Espinos […]”) shows the purely conjectural nature of the allegations. At the hearing Mr.

Aziz mentioned that he is convinced of tampering because there is a portion of the tape where the recording is interrupted. [ 35 ] The video recording was evidence in the trial leading to Mr Aziz’s acquittal of October 16, 2018. This new allegation of tampering with evidence would have arisen from a subsequent discovery that part of the recording was missing. Insofar as Mr. Espinos is concerned, this is simply a contrivance to bring him back into the case, and constitutes an abuse within the meaning of

article 51 C.P.C. [ 36 ] Nothing stated by Mr. Aziz established that the case should continue. BY THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DECLARES ABUSIVE AND DISMISSES in their entirety and in respect of all Defendants in cases number 500-32-162033-205 and 500-32-162034-203;

DECLARES ABUSIVE AND DISMISSES case number 500-32-162033-205 in respect of the defendant Richard Espinos; DECLARES ABUSIVE AND DISMISSES case number 500-32-162034-203 in respect of the defendant Maître Nicolas Rousseau; AND, BY WAY OF CASE MANAGEMENT, CONFIRMS the date of hearing on the merits in case number 500-32-159526-195 on November 8 and 9, 2021 as between Karim Aziz and Ronald Massier; THE WHOLE without costs. __________________________ David L. Cameron, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: July 16, 2021. Additional written submissions by the Plaintiff on July 21, 22 and August 1, 2021.