A man who stalked La Presse for no good reason was labeled “argumentative” in Drummondville on Friday.
Published at 1:21 am. Updated at 5:00 am.
If we define quarrelsomeness as “mania for arguments and complaints,” the list of quarrelsome people could be long.
But it’s a high step to be called argumentative or “annoying.” Once a person has been identified as such, they can only turn to the judiciary with permission. To be part of this select club, you have to have experienced a fair amount of abuse.
His name should sound familiar, as he has been something of a fringe star in 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 in protest against health measures. Since he has already been detained for 121 days, he faces a prison sentence.
PHOTO FRANÇOIS ROY, LA PRESS ARCHIVE
Former leader of “Farfadaas,” Mario Roy, last June
However, this is just one of the legal adventures of the former leader of the “Farfadaas”, whose adventures were reported by his colleague Tristan Péloquin.
Mr. Roy didn’t like that. He sued the journalist and La Presse for $300,000. His case was dismissed because of the statute of limitations. He also lost the right to sue La Presse without the chief justice’s permission.
It must be said that just a year ago the Supreme Court dismissed another lawsuit brought by Roy against another colleague, Philippe Teisceira-Lessard. The court ruled that the journalist was not at fault. But Judge Sophie Picard refused to declare this first prosecution “abusive”. Roy genuinely felt he had been treated unfairly; he had the right to sue. Perhaps suspecting that this would not be Roy’s final legal word, she warned him that if he pursued the matter without cause, it might officially be abuse…
A second judge came to this conclusion on Friday. He is insulting, but so far only to La Presse. For all other procedures he does not need a permit.
It is therefore a…partial dispute.
From a handful a few years ago, their numbers are increasing every year. According to the latest news, there were officially 336 in Quebec, all courts combined1. Various requirements apply to them – they are almost always men – but as a rule they absolutely need permission for the smallest legal step.
We suspect that super plaintiffs filing a yes or no lawsuit (especially a no lawsuit) are a real problem. The five unnecessary court days spent dismissing a baseless charge against journalist Teisceira-Lessard and debating whether it was abuse are court time stolen from people queuing outside the courthouse. Justice.
But in a sense, the contentious end up sorting out the trouble they cause themselves; We spot them pretty quickly and end up framing them, even if we wasted precious hours doing so.
But what about unfounded motives aimed at harming or buying time for an opponent, exhausting him financially, in short, “disgusting” the other?
Nothing really crazy, no official abuse of the system, but just enough pointlessness to make you want to scream in court: Are you serious? Are you really monopolizing court time when people are waiting to be compensated for an accident, to have child custody decided, and to be illegally fired?
If hospitals operated like courthouses, there would be surgeons who would take three stitches a week.
I’m not talking about slowness in completing tasks. I’m talking about those cases that have no real value or that could be solved differently and take up precious hours, days, weeks for judges.
I’m talking about triaging topics.
There is currently an application to the Supreme Court for an injunction from neighbors who complain that the former Saint-Viateur rectory in Outremont has become a CPE. To be more precise: children play in the yard and it bothers them a lot.
Do you mean that seriously ?
No, no, I’m not calling you argumentative. I’m just asking you: Do you really want to go before a judge to demand the fundamental right not to hear a three-year-old child playing outside?
More recently, better yet, Videotron was in Superior Court seeking $45,000 in phone costs from Julie Snyder for roaming charges attributed to the cell phone of one of the couple’s children. Julie Snyder sought damages for abuse of process against her. When the rightly impatient judge Pierre Karl Péladeau asked how much this case had cost in legal fees, the matter was settled, I wanted to answer immediately2.
No, but are you serious? Will we go to court for this when there are so many real injustices?
In the UK, whoever loses a case pays the other party’s costs. Here we act as if advertising costs nothing, as if time is free.
Normal abuse is never punished.