Décision

JB 3083    SUPERIOR COURT
CANADA
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
DISTRICT OF			MONTREAL
No:		500-17-011286-013
DATE:	8 SEPTEMBER  2003
______________________________________________________________________
BY:				THE HONOURABLE	SYLVIANE BORENSTEIN, J.S.C.
______________________________________________________________________
JOSEPH RESCIGNO
Plaintiff
v.
L'ORCHESTRE MÉTROPOLITAIN DE MONTRÉAL
Defendant
______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
______________________________________________________________________

[1]                Joseph Rescigno is suing l'Orchestre Métropolitain du Grand Montréal (the orchestra) for damages incurred following what he alleges to be an abusive termination of his contract coupled with false declarations affecting his reputation.

THE ISSUES

A)                 Was Plaintiff's contract illegally terminated ?

B)                 Did Defendant make defamatory declarations against Plaintiff ?

C)                If so, what damages is Plaintiff entitled to ?

 

THE FACTS :

[2]                In 1995 the parties signed a contract (P-1) establishing Plaintiff as Artistic Director during the period of January 1, 1996 through August 31, 1996 and as Artistic Director and Principal Conductor from September 1, 1996 through August 2001.

[3]                Marie- Dupont Rémillard was the general manager of the orchestra until she resigned in the spring of 1998 and Pierre Péladeau presided its board of directors until his death in December 1997.

[4]                In May 1998, Jean-Pierre Goyer was appointed president of the board and interim general manager, filling both positions as a volunteer.

[5]                In May 1999, Defendant signed a new collective agreement with the musicians, but it had to be ratified anew in December 1999 for the Musicians' Guild to sign it as well.

[6]                In the summer of 1998, an artistic advisory committee (Committee) was created regarding the programming of the orchestra.  It met December 14^th and 22^nd 1999 regarding the 2000-2001 season.

[7]                On January 5, 2000 Plaintiff sent Jacques Marquis, chef d'exploitation of the orchestra, his final programming for the 2000-2001 season (P-5).

[8]                Mr. Goyer asked to meet with Plaintiff on the morning of January 17^th, 2000, they met.  In the evening of that day, Mr. Goyer presented a 2000-2001 season programming to the Board which differed from the one sent by Plaintiff on January 5^th.  It was approved by the board.  On February 4, 2000, Plaintiff through his attorney, sent a letter to the members of the board (P-2) complaining that he was prevented from fulfilling his duties and demanding that the contract be respected.

[9]                The board then sent two of its members to meet with the Plaintiff on February 8, 2000.

[10]            The parties entered into negotiations without success.

[11]            After March 7, 2000, Defendant stopped paying Plaintiff.

[12]            On March 9, 2000 at a press conference, Mr. Goyer announced that a settlement had been reached by mutual agreement with Plaintiff who had asked to be released from performing at the first concert of the 2000-2001 season and that Yannick Nézet-Séguin had been named as artistic director for five years to replace Plaintiff.

[13]            On March 21^st, 2000 Plaintiff conducted the last concert of the 1999-2000 season.

 

THE ANALYSIS

[14]            A)        The proof shows that Plaintiff's contract was illegally terminated.

[15]            Article 9 of the contract (P-1) states :

«This Agreement may be terminated for the following reasons only : …

9.3 By mutual agreement in writing between both  Parties to this agreement …

[16]            When on March 9^th, the orchestra announced that a settlement had been reached by mutual agreement and that Nezet-Séguin had been hired, no such agreement existed.  As a matter of fact, the orchestra's attorney sent Plaintiff's attorney a letter on March 8^th (P-73) with an agreement to be signed by Plaintiff (P-73A) who refused to sign it, as it did not reflect what Plaintiff had demanded during the negotiations.  It also demanded that it be signed the same day : «Comme Il est essentiel pour l'Orchestre de procéder au remplacement de monsieur Rescigno sans délai, veuillez nous confirmer l'acceptation par votre client de l'entente de résiliation aujourd'hui même.»

[17]            Obviously, the orchestra did not have Plaintiff's agreement in writing or otherwise and had already hired Nézet-Séguin to replace him.  But the proof furthermore shows that Mr. Goyer wanted to replace Plaintiff since at least the fall of 1999 as he was not in agreement with the way Plaintiff was handling the musicians.  He felt a number of them had to be fired and Plaintiff had a softer approach.

[18]            In November 1999, Mr. Goyer asked to meet with Jacques Lacombe, the artistic director of Les Grands Ballets Canadiens.  Jacques Lacombe testified that on November 11, 1999, he met Mr. Goyer who asked him if he would take over as artistic director of the orchestra, as he had problems with Mr. Rescigno who had sent warning letters to some musicians, but Mr. Goyer told him that he deplored the fact that they had not been fired as he felt.: «qu'il fallait faire le ménage dans l'orchestre.»  Mr. Lacombe added : «J'étais surpris, j'ai perçu une mise sous tutelle de la direction musicale, l'administration s'arrogeait des pouvoirs du chef d'orchestre.»  Mr. Lacombe told Mr. Goyer he would not be available for another two years, and they discussed who could replace Plaintiff if he were to leave.  Mr. Goyer called him in France in December 1999 and January 2000 to ask him to change his mind.  He stated that he has always refused to cancel a contract as it is not recommended in their small milieu  He went on to say that he was shocked to read in the papers Mr. Goyer's criticism of Mr. Rescigno as artistic director and his complaint that Plaintiff would not conduct the inaugural concert as it is a common practice amongst conductors not to conduct the inaugural concert.  He commented on Mr. Rescigno with whom he worked at the Opéra de Montréal :

·        L'ensemble de son travail était admiré

·        Les musiciens l'aimaient bien

·        Il est passionné et communiquait bien

·        Il a appris le français très vite, il avait pris ce poste à cœur

·        Je n'ai pas eu de retour de l'intérieur de points négatifs

·        Sa programmation était assez innovatrice

·        Il voulait présenter des jeunes compositeurs du Québec, ce qui permettait à l'orchestre d'évoluer artistiquement

·        Avec lui, les cordes étaient libérées, il y avait épanouissement du son de l'orchestre

·        En tant que chef d'opéra, il a apporté une joie de jouer à l'orchestre

·        La réputation de monsieur Rescigno était très bonne

·        L'orchestre n'a pas baissé sous lui, il s'occupait bien des choses

·        La réputation de monsieur Rescigno visait l'ensemble de son travail, un chef est surtout jugé sur la qualité de l'orchestre

·        Si les musiciens et le chef ne s'entendent pas, ça se reflète dans les concerts

·        Un congédiement a toujours un impact traumatisant, c'est dans la continuité qu'on bâtit un orchestre.  Charles Dutoit a congédié un musicien en 24 ans

[19]            Jacques Hétu, the composer, testified to the same effect about Mr. Rescigno:

·        Il s'est intégré très vite dans la communauté francophone

·        Il était très respecté dans le milieu musical

·        J'ai appris son départ par le journal, ça m'a fait un choc

·        Il est un bon chef et un bon directeur artistique

·        Il a élevé le niveau de l'orchestre

·        Je ne comprends pas les déclarations de monsieur Goyer à La Presse le 9 mars (P-7) car les horaires sont faits bien à l'avance, ça m'a paru étrange

·        Je savais que monsieur Rescigno voulait rester à Montréal, il aimait beaucoup le travail avec ses musiciens

·        Il aimait la vie Montréalaise

·        J'ai toujours cru la programmation de l'orchestre conçue par monsieur Rescigno, c'est la responsabilité du directeur artistique.

[20]             Louise Pharand-Samson, the artistic director of the Festival de Lanaudière until 2000 testified about her experience of working with Plaintiff at the Festival :

·        Monsieur Rescigno était très souple, ouvert au nouveau

·        On était énormément satisfait de la qualité de son travail comme chef et collaborateur et on l'a réengagé année après année

·        On a constaté la qualité de l'orchestre

·        Il savait insuffler à son orchestre l'enthousiasme nécessaire

·        Il a toujours respecté ses engagements

·        Il s'est intégré à la communauté

·        Il avait une excellente relation avec ses musiciens.

[21]            She went on to say that she was surprised to hear in the newspapers the criticisms of Mr. Rescigno's competence as artistic director and as to his availability in view of his work at the Festival.

[22]            After Mr. Rescigno's dismissal, she received a fax from Mr. Marquis stating that the orchestra would play at the Festival  with Mr. Nézet-Séguin as conductor.  The Festival had announced its program with Cirque Éloize, the orchestra and Mr. Rescigno.  They were advised that the orchestra would not play with Mr. Rescigno and they created l'Orchestre du Festival to be conducted by Mr. Rescigno. 

[23]            Mr. Jean Castonguay who is in charge of the shows for the city of Pierrefonds, testified that the orchestra gave three concerts a year in Pierrefonds, that both Mr. Rescigno and the orchestra were appreciated and that there was a good attendance.  He was very surprised by the news of Mr. Rescigno's departure.

[24]            Catherine Perrin, musician with I Musici and responsible for a program on the cultural station of C.B.C. radio until 2000, interviewed Mr. Goyer on March 16, 2000 (P-58).  She confirmed that the transcript was true to the interview and testified :

·        Sous la baguette de monsieur Rescigno, j'avais l'impression que l'orchestre avait donné le meilleur en concerts

·        L'orchestre avait atteint un niveau impressionnant sous monsieur Rescigno

·        Je ne suis pas d'accord que monsieur Rescigno n'était pas un bon directeur artistique

[25]            At page 44 of P-58, she states : «Je dois vous avouer qu'on souhaite aussi à monsieur Rescigno beaucoup de belles et de bonnes choses parce qu'il a apporté quand même énormément à l'orchestre …. Une qualité dans le niveau de jeu assez extraordinaire … »

[26]            John Miller, Mr. Rescigno's manager from New York, testified that in December 1999 Mr. Rescigno asked him to contact the orchestra regarding the renewal of his contract but that he usually allows the engager to contact him.  In early 2000, Mr. Rescigno advised him that he had been dismissed.

[27]            The proof also shows that whereas until the fall of 1999, the orchestra had always managed its schedule to accommodate Mr. Rescigno's other engagements as per article 4 of the contract, and the programming proposed by Mr. Rescigno had always been approved by the board, all of a sudden difficulties were created on both counts.

[28]            It is particularly interesting to note that the orchestra reproached Mr. Rescigno for being unable to conduct the inaugural concert.  But this inability was created by the orchestra on January 21^st 2000 (P-14) when it changed its date to September 24^th for its inaugural concert knowing full well since the summer of 1999 that Mr. Rescigno had a conflict on that day as is shown on P-16.

[29]            Until January 21^st, the date which had been retained by the orchestra in November 1999 for the 2000-2001 season inaugural concert was October 2^nd (P-9 and P-10) which posed no problem for Mr. Rescigno.  The switch was effected after the meeting of January 17^th between Mr. Rescigno and Mr. Goyer.  The parties have different versions of what took place at that meting. 

[30]            The Court retains Mr. Rescigno's version which is more consistent with all the proof, Mr. Goyer's version having contradictions with other proof including his own examination on discovery of December 2000 and his testimony in general was often vague.  For example: at the hearing, Mr. Goyer testified that he was surprised that Mr. Rescigno was not present at the board meeting in the evening of January 17^th as he had told him that morning that he was going to present the program for the 2000-2001 season.  However, in December 2000, at page 74 of his examination on discovery, h stated that Mr. Rescigno was not at the board meeting because he had a rehearsal that evening.

[31]            Mr. Goyer testified that he met with Jacques Lacombe in November 1999 :

·        On a eu une conversation intéressante

·        Je ne peux concevoir comment j'aurais pu lui offrir le poste sans le connaître et alors que le poste n'était pas ouvert

·        Je lui ai parlé des problèmes de relations humaines, il restait vague et imprécis

·        J'aurais eu beaucoup de difficultés à l'engager.

[32]            This is in complete contradiction with Jacques Lacombe's testimony related above, Mr. Lacombe being an independent witness.

[33]            Mr. Rescigno's testimony regarding the meeting of January 17, 2000 was to the effect that at that period, he was rehearsing both for the opera and for concerts under a heavy schedule and had asked that nothing else be scheduled.

[34]            In December, Mr. Marquis had asked him to sign two letters of warning to two musicians : Mr. Marion and Ms Cléroux.  He had agreed regarding Mr. Marion but refused regarding Ms Cléroux as she had performed well in the Bruckner concert and at the Christmas concert.

[35]            He was asked to a meeting with Mr. Goyer on January 17^th, although it was inconvenient as he was rehearsing for the opera from 1:00 to 10:00 p.m., he agreed to a morning meeting at 10:00 a.m. which took place closer to 11:30 a.m.  Mr. Goyer went over the program that Mr. Rescigno had faxed at the beginning of January (P-5), giving him the substantial changes he wanted.  Mr. Rescigno tried to argue why he was against the changes:  For France, Mr. Goyer's proposal was only concerti with young people.  Mr. Rescigno felt it would be boring, Mr. Morin agreed and proposed Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique, but Mr. Rescigno felt it would be too long.  Mr. Rescigno also felt that an all Alain Trudel evening for Austria including Blue Bells of Scotland was inappropriate.  He also was against having the Jubilation Gospel Choir which he had opposed at the artistic committee meetings.  He disagreed with the program Mr. Goyer presented him and told Mr. Goyer he would not present it to the board.  Goyer answered : «this is the program".  He then asked Mr. Rescigno about the letter for Ms. Cléroux.  At that point, Mr. Rescigno had seven minutes to get to his rehearsal.  He said: "I  am not sending the letter, don’t expect me to renew my contract under these circumstances and I am going".  When he left, he met Mr. Marquis and told him : «Je ne mérite pas un tel traitement.»  He then went to rehearsal in shock and got home around 10:20 p.m..  He knew a board meeting had taken place and called a member of the board, Louise Léonard, to find out what took place.  He learnt that the program containing two works he had not approved (P-25) had been presented to the board as his.  It even contained a composer, Albrechsberger, whom he had never heard of.  He felt betrayed.  No specific program had been assigned a specific date at that time except for Verdi's Requiem set for April 2001.

[36]            After January 17^th, Mr. Rescigno felt his contract (P-1) was not being respected as paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 read :

"1.1 He is the final authority and responsible official in the selection of all musicians, both orchestral musicians and soloists in consultation with the General Manager.

1.2 He is responsible for the choice of repertory to be performed on all programs …"

[37]            He therefore consulted an attorney who sent Defendant a letter (P-2) with copies to all the board members demanding that the contract be respected.  His contract, certainly, had not been respected concerning his relationship with the musicians.

[38]            The proof shows constant pressure amounting to harassment by Mr. Marquis and Mr. Goyer to get rid of musicians by firing them.  Mr. Goyer was bent on "cleaning house" and Mr. Marquis was trying to accomplish it.  Mr. Rescigno preferred to get the musicians who were not up to par, to resign or retire and to choose when it was appropriate to make changes in the orchestra.  He convinced Mr. Archambault, trumpet to retire, other musicians to change chairs, others to take congé sabbatique and they never returned.

[39]            All the experts in the field agreed that the orchestra had greatly improved under his baton and was performing well and had enthusiasm.  Thus, the atmosphere he created and strove to maintain contributed to the success of the orchestra.  Witness the testimonies of Jacques Lacombe, Jacques Hétu, Catherine Perrin; the cudos in the minutes of the board's meeting of August 1999 reporting that Mr. Goyer (D-4) :«Il fait valoir la qualité du travail fourni par monsieur Rescigno, par ailleurs très apprécié des musiciens et du public», those contained in the pamphlet of the orchestra published in 2000 (D-19) coming from François Tousignan from Le Devoir, Claude Gingras from La Presse, Arthur Kaptainis and Isle Zadrozny, both from The Gazette.

[40]            Mr. Rescigno was doing his job regarding the musicians, but not in the manner that Mr. Goyer wanted him to do it even though it was Mr. Rescigno's prerogative.

[41]            As to the repertory, the custom of the trade as testified to by Jacques Lacombe, Jacques Hétu and John Miller is that it is up to the artistic director.  The artistic Committee was an advisory committee and the Defendant imposing its choice of repertoire over Plaintiff's objections on January 17^th was a new treatment for Plaintiff after four years of harmonious relations which again confirms that Defendant had decided to get rid of him, as does the taking of the picture of the orchestra without its artistic director on January 24^th, 2000, for its promotion, contrary to what had been done in the past as shown in the examination on discovery of Mr. Goyer page 177 :  «C'est la seule fois, à ma connaissance», as does the removing of Plaintiff's name as conductor on the program of the season (I-16 filed as D-22) done by Mr. Marquis on December 22, 1999, whereas the December 14 version (D-15) bore Plaintiff's name.

[42]            On January18, 2001 at his examination on discovery, Mr. Marquis was asked at page 75 : «Expliquez-moi pourquoi vous avez effacé le nom du chef dans I-16 ?»  He answered « Aucune idée.  Aucune idée»  And furthermore, a copy (D-22) was neither shown nor given to Plaintiff at that time.

[43]            Other telling elements showing that Plaintiff did not resign and that there was no mutual agreement in writing to end the contract are the minutes of the February 16^th meeting of the board (P-26), Mr. Serge Carrière's notes of his meeting with Plaintiff on February 8^th, his testimony at trial, the projet d'entente sent by Plaintiff's attorney on February 25^th (D-36), the lettre d'entente sent in reply the same day by Mr. Marquis (D-37), the reply sent to Mr. Marquis the same day by Plaintiff's attorney (D-38), the letter sent by Mr. Marquis to Plaintiff's attorney on February 28th (P-78), and of course the letter and entente de résiliation sent by Defendant's attorney to Plaintiff's attorney on March 8^th (P-73, P-73A), the day before Defendant announced the appointment of a new artistic director despite the fact that no mutual agreement had been signed to cancel Plaintiff's contract.

[44]            The Court did not lend very much credence to the testimony of Jacques Marquis.  The proof shows that he cooperated with Plaintiff the previous years, managed to combine the orchestra's performances and Plaintiff's schedule in order to avoid conflict.  However, once Mr. Goyer voiced to him his dissatisfaction with the way Plaintiff was handling the firing of musicians which Mr. Goyer was so intent upon, Mr. Marquis did Mr. Goyer's bidding in harassing Plaintiff regarding the musicians, creating conflicts with the program and the schedule and no longer cooperating with Plaintiff.  When Mr. Marquis suddenly left the employ of the orchestra, Mr. Goyer left as well.  Mr. Marquis' testimony is replete with contradictions, evasiveness and numerous and convenient : «Je n'ai pas souvenir».  For example : he testified that he had retained the new date of September 24 which created a scheduling conflict for Plaintiff, before January 17.  But P-14 shows that is was not until January 21^st, that he requested that date.  But in his examination on discovery of January 18, 2001, at page 53, he states : «Regardez, ici, le vingt-neuf (29) janvier deux mille (2000), j'écris à madame Bouvier, puis je lui demande de me confirmer l'ouverture le vingt-quatre (24) septembre à Wilfrid-Pelletier, ce que je n'avais pas avant».

[45]            In his testimony, he declares «je n'ai pas souvenir d'avoir discuté de la version 8 avec monsieur Goyer». And two sentences further : «j'ai parlé à monsieur Goyer des conflits d'horaire de la version 8 avant le 17 janvier.»  Then he states regarding P-20 : «J'ai discuté avec Maestro Rescigno du Requiem en octobre 2000, je crois que oui.» and a few sentences further : «je n'ai pas parlé du Requiem, j'attendais que ça passe devant le conseil d'administration.»

·        Then when questionned on the meeting of January 17 and the discussion with Mr. Goyer on the program, he declares :

·        «Je ne me souviens pas lui avoir remis de documents.

·        Entre le 22 décembre et le 17 janvier, c'est fort possible que j'ai remis des documents à monsieur Goyer.

·        Je n'ai pas souvenir d'avoir remis la programmation envoyée par Maestro Rescigno ou d'autres programmations.

·         On ne discutait pas de programmation, on discutait du Requiem de Verdi

·         On n'avait pas besoin de documents

·         Version 9 : Albrechsberger vient de Maestro Rescigno»

[46]            When asked about that last statement on version 9 : «Etes-vous certain ?»  He replies «Non».  When asked about P-21, a document listing certain musicians with either "demission" or "remaniement, avertissements" and the like and a list of auditions to come for certain positions, he replied :

·         « Je ne sais quand le document a été préparé par moi

·         Auditions à venir à l'externe, c'est de moi, pas de Maestro Rescigno

·         Je n'ai pas souvenir d'avoir remis ce document à Maestro Rescigno»

although all the above was clearly Plaintiff's responsibility;

[47]            There are other examples but those above serve to illustrate the non-reliability of Mr. Marquis' testimony

B. THE PROOF SHOWS THAT DEFENDANT MADE DEFAMATORY DECLARATIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF    

[48]            On March 9^th, at the press conference held by Defendant, Mr. Goyer announced that Yannick Nézet-Séguin had been appointed as artistic director for five years, replacing Plaintiff whose departure had been decided by mutual agreement.  He added that Plaintiff had advised him in January that he would be unable to conduct the inaugural concert due to engagements in the United States which was not true. 

[49]            Questioned that same day by Claude Gingras after the press conference, Mr. Goyer told him that he was not sorry to see Plaintiff leave as he was a very good conductor but not a very good artistic director.  These declarations were widely distributed by the media on March 10 and the following days (P-3, P-7, P-8, P-52 ¨-53, P-54, P-55) all quoting :

«Jean-Pierre Goyer, a expliqué hier en conférence de presse que monsieur Rescigno lui avait fait part dès janvier de l'impossibilité où il était de diriger le concert inaugural de la saison prochaine, en raison de nombreux engagements aux États-Unis.»

[50]            On March 16th, in the interview by Catherine Perrin for C.B.C. radio (P-58) at page 31, Mr. Goyer repeats :

«Joseph Rescigno est un très bon chef mais pas un très bon directeur artistique … Or Joseph n'a jamais été directeur artistique d'un orchestre symphonique.  Et il n'aime pas jouer ce rôle-là, c'est évident, et il s'est rebuté, il a manqué d'équilibre.  Lorsqu'on envoie une lettre à un musicien et qu'en même temps on lui tape dans le dos en disant qu'il est très bon, il est très bon, à ce moment-là, bien, il faut savoir se brancher dans la vie.  Alors, il faut un acte de courage, vous avez raison, un chef n'aime pas jouer ça, tout le monde veut être populaire dans la vie. Mais à un moment donné, il faut être plus fondamental.  J'avais un excellent rapport avec Joseph Rescigno, comme chef; directeur artistique, différent.  Mais pour aller plus loin, il n'y a pas de crise parce que monsieur Rescigno a indiqué à l'orchestre, à l'administration, qu'il avait un horaire très chargé l'année prochaine … avant que tous ces événements surviennent, monsieur Rescigno m'avait annoncé qu'il ne serait pas là pour l'ouverture de la saison en me  disant qu'il avait un contrat lucratif aux États-Unis.  Et je le comprends.  Être payé en argent américain …» (souligné du Tribunal)

[51]            He repeated the same thing on March 19, at another radio interview conducted by Colette Mercier (P-59) et page 3 :  «La majorité des musiciens demandait à ce qu'il y ait un certain ménage qui soit effectué.  Or, Joseph, il n'aime pas jouer ce rôle-là, c'est évident.  Il faut un acte de courage.» (souligné du Tribunal)

[52]            On May 2, 2000, Mr. Goyer sent a letter to all the musicians of the orchestra (P-62), following a dispute during a rehearsal between Plaintiff and a musician, François Martel, who was also the chairman of the musicians' Committee.  Plaintiff asked that he be replaced for the opera they were rehearsing and Mr. Martel complained to Mr. Goyer.  The letter reads :

«J'ai pris connaissance des faits relativement à la lettre que m'a fait parvenir François Martel.  À titre de président du conseil d'administration et directeur général de l'Orchestre Métropolitain, je comprends et je partage sa profonde indignation.

Parce qu'il s'agit d'une question de principe, L'OM a communiqué à François Martel son soutien indéfectible comme nous l'aurions fait pour tout autre musicien ou musicienne dans des circonstances similaires.  Sa décision a été plutôt de placer les intérêts de l'Opéra de Montréal et ceux de L'OM au dessus des siens en ne se présentant pas lors des services subséquents.  Compte tenu de l'affront qu'il a subi, ceci est admirable et tout en son honneur.

Autant nous reconnaissons la dignité de son comportement, autant nous condamnons la bassesse de cet affront et la lâcheté de celui qui l'a commis.

                                                                                                  (Court's underlining)

Ceci étant dit, en guise de geste purement symbolique, L'OM versera à François Martel le cachet équivalent au nombre de services pour lesquels il a été privé de jouer avec ses collègues.

Le président du conseil et directeur général.»

[53]            The letter is insulting to Plaintiff and malicious in its content.

[54]            In September 2000, in an interview with L'Actualité (-63) at page 3, Mr. Goyer again reiterates : «Joe était un très bon chef, mais pas un très bon directeur artistique».  It is clear that for Mr. Goyer, a good artistic director is one who obeys Mr. Goyer and fires the musicians in accordance with Mr. Goyer's wishes.

[55]            It is not however, the definition by experts in the field as shown by the proof cited above.  It is particularly interesting to note that Mr. Lacombe who had been assistant conductor to Charles Dutoit, testified that Mr. Dutoit fired only one musician in 24 years at the O.S.M.  It is also interesting to note that the musicians who were to be fired, according to Mr. Goyer and Mr. Marquis, were still with the orchestra at the time of the hearing, three years later.

[56]            In his declarations to the press, Mr. Goyer made statements which did not reflect the reality.  When he declared that Mr. Rescigno had told the orchestra in January, referring to January 17, that he could not conduct the inaugural concert, the date of that concert had not been decided.  As a matter of fact, at page 167 of his examination, Mr. Marquis asked what scheduling conflict existed on January 17, said : «Je ne sais pas.»

[57]            In referring to "argent américain" in P-58, Mr. Goyer added a gratuitous and malicious remark.

THE DAMAGES

[58]            Defendant fired Plaintiff without cause and his contract was abusively terminated.  He is entitled to his salary and benefits until the end of the contract in August 2001 representing $ 106 000.  Since clause 4 of the contract allowed him to have additional work, his earnings until August 2001 should not be deducted from the $ 106 000.

[59]            However, Mr. Rescigno is not entitled to an amount for the apartment in Montreal, since he did not reside in Montreal and neither is he entitled to moving expenses as he would have had to incur them at the end of the contract in any case.  He is not entitled to his claim for loss of business opportunities he had turned down for the period of the balance of his contract due to his obligations to the Defendant since the Court has granted him his remuneration for the full balance of his contract.

[60]            Mr. Rescigno is however entitled to moral damages as Defendant fired him in a brutal, abusive, cavalier and malicious manner which as Plaintiff and his wife testified caused Plaintiff great mental and physical anguish such as loss of sleep, loss of appetite resulting in loss of weight of 28 pounds in two and a half months, panic attacks, he was depressed, demoralized, stressed, unhappy, he felt isolated.

[61]            In looking at the recent jurisprudence, the Court will grant $ 50 000 as moral damages.

[62]            The claim for damages for loss of reputation which was originally for $ 50 000 was amended to $ 100 000 at the hearing.

[63]            The proof shows indeed that Mr. Goyer repeatedly made disparaging and unjustified comments which attacked Mr. Rescigno's reputation in the press, on the radio and Mr. Goyer even sent a letter to the musicians of the orchestra accusing Plaintiff of being a coward.  It was pure malice as it was in May 2000 when Mr. Rescigno had already left the orchestra.  For a conductor and artistic director to be accused of not respecting a contract is very damaging as explained by Mr. Lacombe, Mr. Miller and Plaintiff.  Furthermore, it was untrue.

[64]            At best, Mr. Goyer acted with «maladresse, incouciance et malveillance».  But it seems to the court that rather, he acted with «malice, méchanceté et intention de nuire».

[65]            These are the terms that are constantly found in the recent jurisprudence cited by the parties.  Either way, such behaviour gives rise to damages.  In the case of Plaintiff, the damage is greater due to his age.  A young conductor would have time to show that he is not what he is accused of being, not so for plaintiff and in doubt, orchestras will forego hiring him or even putting him on the short list.  He has experienced a new lack of interest in his services from Canadian orchestras and American orchestras as well, as testified to in detail by Mr. Miller.

[66]            The Court will therefore grant $ 75 0000 as damages to his reputation.

 

FOR THESE REASONS, the court :

MAINTAINS Plaintiff's action;

Condems Defendant to pay the sum of $ 231 000 with interest and the indemnity provided by law from the date of the institution of the action;

The whole with costs.

 

	__________________________________ SYLVIANE BORENSTEIN, j.s.c.
Mortimer Freiheit
Attorney for Plaintiff
Chantal Tremblay
Attorney for Defendant