A man who pursued The Press without valid reason was declared “quarrelsome” Friday in Drummondville.
If we define quarrelsomeness as the “mania for quarrels and lawsuits,” the list of quarrelsome people could be long.
But the step is high to be described as quarrelsome or “vexatious”. Because once identified as such, a person can only have recourse to justice with permission. You have to have a lot of abuse to be part of this select club.
His name may ring a bell, as he was a sort of star of a fringe of the conspiracy movement during the pandemic. His name is Mario Roy. He is one of those who blocked the Louis-Hippolyte-La Fontaine bridge-tunnel to protest against health measures. Already incarcerated for 121 days, he risks a prison sentence.
PHOTO FRANÇOIS ROY, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
The former leader of “Farfadaas”, Mario Roy, last June
But this is only one of the legal adventures of the former leader of “Farfadaas” whose adventures were recounted by his colleague Tristan Péloquin.
Mr. Roy did not appreciate it. He pursued the journalist and The Press for $300,000. His case was dismissed due to statute of limitations. He also lost the right to sue The Press without the permission of the Chief Justice.
It must be said that just a year ago, the Superior Court rejected another lawsuit by Roy against another colleague, Philippe Teisceira-Lessard. The journalist committed no fault, the court concluded. But judge Sophie Picard refused to declare this first prosecution “abusive”. Roy sincerely felt wronged, he had the right to sue. Perhaps suspecting that this would not be Roy’s last legal word, she warned that if he persisted in pursuing this for no reason, it could officially become abuse…
This is what a second judge concluded on Friday. He is abusive, but so far, only to The Press. For any other procedure, he does not need permission.
He is therefore a… partial quarrel.
From a handful a few years ago, their number increases every year. At the latest news, there were officially 336 in Quebec, all courts combined.1. They – they are almost always men – are subject to various conditions, but in general, they absolutely need permission for the slightest legal action.
We can guess that super-claimers who file a yes or no suit (especially a no) are a real problem. The five unnecessary court days spent dismissing a meritless prosecution against journalist Teisceira-Lessard, and debating whether it was abuse, are court time stolen from people who are in line outside the palace of justice.
But in a way, the quarrelsome end up sorting out the trouble they cause for themselves; we spot them quite quickly and we end up framing them, even if it is after precious wasted hours.
But what about ill-founded causes, intended to harm or gain time, financially exhaust an adversary… “disgust” the other, in short?
Nothing really crazy, no official abuse of the system, but just enough pointlessness to make you want to shout in court: are you serious? Are you really monopolizing court time to Thatwhen people are waiting to be compensated for an accident, waiting for child custody to be determined, or being fired illegally?
If hospitals functioned like courthouses, there are surgeons who would take a week to do three stitches.
I’m not talking here about slowness in completing tasks. I am talking about these cases without any real merit, or which could be resolved otherwise, and which occupy judges for precious hours, days, weeks.
I’m talking about triage of topics.
There is currently a request in Superior Court for an injunction from neighbors who are complaining that the former Saint-Viateur presbytery in Outremont has become a CPE. More precisely: there are children playing in the yard and it bothers them a lot.
Are you serious ?
No, no, I’m not calling you quarrelsome. I only ask you: do you really want to go before a judge for the fundamental right not to hear a 3 year old child playing outside?
The other day, better yet, Videotron was in Superior Court to claim $45,000 in telephone costs from Julie Snyder, for roaming costs attributed to the cell phone of one of the couple’s children. Julie Snyder claimed damages for abuse of process against her. When the judge, rightly impatient, asked Pierre Karl Péladeau how much this case had cost in legal fees, the case was settled, I was going to say straight away.2.
No but, are you serious? We are going to court for That when there are so many real injustices to right?
In the UK, whoever loses a lawsuit pays the other party’s costs. Here, we act as if courtship costs nothing, as if time is free.
Ordinary abuse is never punished.