A citizen of Saint-Constant who has terrorized several elected officials and municipal civil servants since 2016, going so far as to follow them and attack them in the street, has just been sentenced to 30 days in prison by the Court of Appeal.
Michel Vachon, who describes himself as a resident who only “asks disturbing questions” to Saint-Constant’s elected officials, was the target of a long legal saga initially initiated by the municipality to force him to stop sending contemptuous, disrespectful and defamatory emails to the city clerk.
The Court of Appeal’s ruling on Tuesday confirms that a person found guilty of contempt of court can not only be sentenced to fines and community service to force them to comply with a court order, but also to a prison sentence if the circumstances justify it.
The case was first heard in 2019, when the court ordered the 64-year-old to stop harassing city employees, calling them “scoundrels” and “corrupt.”
But Mr. Vachon, who is representing himself without a lawyer, ignored the order so much that the Superior Court found him guilty of eight counts of contempt of court. That conviction, which came with a $5,000 fine and 20 hours of community service, included a new clause specifically prohibiting him from “harassing, annoying, wilfully following or intimidating” any city employee, elected official or civil servant.
But the citizen continued his threats, to the point where the court banned him from attending council meetings or approaching municipal buildings for a period of one year. But that was not enough to stop him.
De plus en plus agressif, le citoyen au gabarit assez impressionnant s’est mis à prendre des employés en filature et à relever leurs plaques d’immatriculation. En février 2022, il a attaqué violemment la greffière de la municipalité en pleine rue, lui assenant un violent coup de poing au visage pour la faire chuter de son vélo et la pousser dans la neige par la suite. Le geste lui a valu des accusations criminelles et une détention de 30 jours dans l’attente de son procès, qui s’est soldé par une peine avec sursis et une probation de 3 ans.
La Cour supérieure l’a peu après reconnu coupable de six autres chefs d’outrage au tribunal, mais a refusé de lui imposer une peine d’emprisonnement, comme le demandait la ville. Le juge Lukasz Granosik a estimé que la prison n’est pas appropriée dans un cas semblable d’outrage au tribunal parce qu’elle a une finalité « punitive » qui ne peut servir un objectif de « coercition » pour le contraindre à respecter les ordonnances.
La Cour d’appel estime qu’il a erré : « Comme aucune autre mesure n’a permis d’assurer le respect des ordonnances par [M. Vachon]”, imprisonment is necessary,” concluded judges Robert Mainville, Stephen Hamilton and Peter Kalichman, stressing that the man continues his attitude of defiance.
Mr. Vachon therefore has five days from today to report to the police, who have been ordered by the court to take him to a detention facility.
Under the Code of Civil Procedure, however, this incarceration is conditional on him being “periodically called to appear to explain himself” before the Court. The authorities will therefore have to take Mr. Vachon to the Court no later than 14e day of his detention, “in order to allow him to demonstrate that he intends to obey the orders,” the magistrates specified.
Read also “Terror at City Hall”