2019 QCCQ 2373, 2019 QCCQ 2373

K.R. c. CIUSSS du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal 2019 QCCQ 2373 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-153373-164 DATE: April 17, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ K. R. in his capacity as mandatary of L. L. Plaintiff v.

CIUSSS DU CENTRE-SUD-DE-L’ÎLE-DE-MONTRÉAL and DIANE BRENNAN Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This proceeding was consolidated and tried at the same time as the proceedings in cases n° 500-32-153346-160 [1] and n° 500- 32-157846-181, [2] and determined on the same evidence. [ 2 ] In his claim, plaintiff states that he is acting “in his capacity as mandatary of L. L.”. [ 3 ] He is suing defendants for the following reasons: “ The Plaintiff hereby declares that: 1.

On or around July 26, 2013, the Defendant caused the following damage to the Plaintiff: The Defendant was negligent in their duty, incompetent, there was breach of trust, abuse of power, abuse of their office and they did not respect her privacy. 2. The Defendant is liable for the damage for the following reasons: Negligence, abuse of power, breach of trust. 3. The fault was committed on or around July 26, 2013, at Montréal (Quebec). 4. The damage has occurred at Montréal (Quebec). 5. The Plaintiff claims an amount of $15,000.00 for the following reasons: same reasons listed above. 6.

The total amount claimed by the Plaintiff is broken down as follows: 15,000$ - damages.” (claim dated July 21, 2016) [ 4 ] Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed for the following reasons. [ 5 ] At trial, plaintiff admitted that he is not L. L.’s legal mandatary. [ 6 ] Furthermore, witness Nancy Latraverse, “ curatrice déléguée à l’accueil ”, confirmed same. [ 7 ] Plaintiff stated that he had a “power of attorney”, but did not produce any supporting documents in this regard. [ 8 ] Plaintiff, therefore, does not have sufficient interest to act on L.

L.’s behalf, and his claim must be dismissed (arts. 85 ff of the Code of Civil Procedure ). [ 9 ] Moreover, even if plaintiff had sufficient interest to act herein, which he does not, there is no “ lien de droit ” between social worker technician Diane Brennan and either plaintiff or L. L., as Brennan acted for or on behalf of the CIUSSS Centre-Sud-de-l’île-de- Montréal, at all relevant times.

[ 10 ] What is more, plaintiff failed to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, the faults and omissions alleged in his claim (arts. 2803 and 2804 of the Civil Code of Québec ), said allegations having been denied and negated by the numerous witnesses heard at trial (Sylvain St-Pierre; Geneviève Boyer; Stéphanie Desmarais; Maria Arteaga; Diane Brennan; Elaine Crombie; Merveille Kaseka; Annie Marleau; Marie-Hélène Leduc; Nancy Latraverse). [ 11 ] Many, if not all of these witnesses also testified before the Human Rights Tribunal, in a separate matter involving R. and L. L.

The Tribunal found against plaintiff and concluded, inter alia , as follows: « [1] La Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (la Commission) allègue à l’encontre du défendeur, K. R., qu’au cours des années 2012 et 2013 il a porté atteinte de manière illicite et intentionnelle au droit de L. L. (Mme L.) et de son mari feu J. D. d’être protégés contre l’exploitation des personnes âgées, en profitant de leur vulnérabilité à son bénéfice personnel, ce, en contravention de l’

article 48 de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne (la Charte ). […] [224] Étant donné ce qui précède, le Tribunal conclut que M. R. a exploité J. D. et L. L. […] [234] Le Tribunal conclut donc qu’en agissant comme il l’a fait, M. R. a porté atteinte à la dignité de M. et Mme L. en contravention des articles 4 et 10 de la Charte . » [3] [ 12 ] Under the circumstances, the Court deems plaintiff’s testimony to be highly compromised and unreliable. [ 13 ] In

summary, whereas plaintiff does not have sufficient interest to act on L. L.’s behalf, and did not fulfill his burden of proof; WHEREFORE THE COURT HEREBY: DISMISSES plaintiff's claim; and CONDEMNS plaintiff personally to pay legal costs in the amount of $300.00. __________________________________ ELIANA MARENGO, J.C.Q. Dates of hearing: October 29, 2018, and February 18, 2019.