Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube Nous joindre | English


Les décisions diffusées proviennent de tribunaux ou d'organismes indépendants de SOQUIJ et pourraient ne pas être accessibles aux personnes handicapées qui utilisent des technologies d'adaptation. Visitez la page Accessibilité pour en savoir plus.
Copier l'url dans le presse-papier
Le lien a été copié dans le presse-papier

Westmount (City of) c. Fattal

2013 QCCS 1502
















APRIL 5, 2013







File no 500-17-038635-077








File no 500-17-043648-081











[1]           The City of Westmount has brought two actions against Mr. Sam (Salim) Fattal, a Westmount resident.  The first action (500-17-038635-077) seeks a declaration that Mr. Fattal is a vexatious litigant, and an injunction preventing him from communicating with municipal employees and elected officials, except through an attorney.  Westmount’s second action (500-17-043648-081) seeks an injunction ordering Mr. Fattal to allow hydro employees to enter his property for the purpose of taking meter readings.

[2]           During the hearing, Mr. Fattal undertook to provide Westmount Hydro with unrestricted access to his property at 3035 Saint Antoine Street for the purpose of taking meter readings and carrying out other necessary work.  As a result, Westmount discontinued its action against him in case 081. 

[3]           Consequently, these reasons deal exclusively with the City’s action against Mr. Fattal in case 077. 

[4]           In essence, Westmount alleges that over a period of several years Mr. Fattal sent very large amounts of derogatory correspondence to the City, falsely accusing its employees of anti-Semitism and harassment.  Westmount claims that Mr. Fattal tried to intimidate its employees by bringing a number of frivolous lawsuits against them.  Westmount wants the disruptive communications to stop and has asked the Court to restrain Mr. Fattal from bringing further legal action against the City and its officials without first obtaining the permission of the Court.

[5]           Mr. Fattal sees matters very differently.  He believes the City has refused to deliver permits to him, and has fined him, because he is Jewish.  He believes he has been harassed by Westmount officials and that his actions to denounce these injustices are entirely justified. 

[6]           Mr. Fattal’s dispute with Westmount goes back 15 years, to 1998.  What the evidence shows is that Mr. Fattal has not been the victim of discrimination or harassment by the City.  Mr. Fattal is the owner of an apartment building and a residence in Westmount.  When he has undertaken construction work on these properties, the City has required him to comply with municipal by-laws and building and fire codes.  In applying the regulations, Westmount has not harassed Mr. Fattal or treated him differently from any other citizen. 

[7]           Mr. Fattal’s behaviour, on the other hand, has been unreasonable and excessive.  He has largely exceeded the limit of reasonable free speech in his communications with Westmount and its officials.  He has repeatedly made unfounded and derogatory statements, and his mass mailings to the City and its lawyers have become a nuisance.  In addition, Mr. Fattal has abused the courts in an attempt to intimidate and seek revenge upon Westmount’s employees.

[8]           In 2008, this Court issued a safeguard order prohibiting Mr. Fattal from having direct contact with City officials.  This order will be made permanent and Mr. Fattal’s right to sue the City and its officials will be subjected to certain limits.

The facts

[9]           In 1997, Mr. Fattal purchased an abandoned building on Saint Antoine Street in the City of Westmount.  The building had formerly served as a technical college.  Without applying for a building or occupancy permit, Mr. Fattal began converting the building into a residential property containing twenty five apartments. 

[10]        Westmount inspectors visited the building in March 1998.  Three apartments had been built and were occupied.  The inspectors noted that the building had no sprinklers or emergency lighting. 

[11]        The City issued a notice to vacate the building, but the tenants remained and work continued.  In August, Westmount issued a stop work notice.  In September, City inspectors discovered that 18 apartments were occupied.

[12]        In September 1998, Westmount obtained a court injunction prohibiting Mr. Fattal from renting more apartments.  The City was allowed to inspect the building and found 44 major building and fire code violations.   Mr. Fattal’s lawyer wrote to the City and promised that the deficiencies would be corrected as soon as possible. 

[13]        On this basis, Westmount issued a building permit to Mr. Fattal in October 1998.  However, it advised Mr. Fattal that he would have to correct the noted deficiencies before the City would issue an occupancy permit. 

[14]        On October 23, 1998, Mr. Fattal wrote a letter to Ms. Joanne Poirier, Westmount’s director of urban planning.[1]   He called upon Ms. Poirier to “cancel” the September court injunction and accused her of “malicious, painful and abusive activities” that wasted taxpayers’ money.  Mr. Fattal stated that it was time for Ms. Poirier to end her “Gestapo style” behaviour. 

[15]        In the top corner of his letter, Mr. Fattal reproduced a Second World War photo of a Nazi officer, with his boot over the neck of a prostrate concentration camp prisoner.  In the background, several other prisoners in striped uniforms hung from posts.  Mr. Fattal signed his letter to Ms. Poirier, “Your Hostage”.

[16]        Ms. Poirier was upset by the letter.  Westmount’s lawyers wrote to Mr. Fattal, asking him not to communicate with Westmount officials and to direct all future correspondence to them.

[17]         A further incident in the autumn of 1998 alarmed Westmount’s building inspectors.  One day, Westmount’s employee, Mr. Michel Poulin, was performing an electrical inspection at the Saint Antoine building.  Mr. Fattal suddenly appeared behind Mr. Poulin wearing a Saddam Hussein mask and brandishing a baseball bat.  Mr. Poulin was frightened, but Mr. Fattal later called it a joke. 

[18]        In the end, it took Mr. Fattal five years to correct the deficiencies in the Saint Antoine building and obtain an occupancy permit.  According to Ms. Poirier, the delay was caused by Mr. Fattal’s obstinacy and refusal to cooperate with the City.  Mr. Fattal claims the City harassed him unnecessarily.  One thing is certain however: the delays and disagreements only fuelled a growing sense of anger and resentment in Mr. Fattal.

[19]        In January 2001, Mr. Fattal filed a complaint before the Québec Human Rights Commission in which he alleged that Westmount’s actions were motivated by anti-Semitism.  However, in a brief decision dated March 22, 2002, the Commission concluded there was insufficient evidence to support Mr. Fattal’s accusations.[2]

[20]        Following Mr. Fattal’s letter to Ms. Poirier in October 1998, he began writing to other Westmount employees and to elected officials to complain of mistreatment.[3] 

[21]        In a letter dated December 11, 1998 to Ms. Marie-France Paquet, Westmount City Clerk, Mr. Fattal once again made threatening remarks and appended a photo of tortured concentration camp prisoners.  Ms. Pacquet complained to the police, who visited Mr. Fattal at his home in February 1999.  The police officers warned Mr. Fattal that his comments were inappropriate and should cease.[4]

[22]        Mr. Fattal did not heed the police officers’ advice.  Thereafter, his letter-writing campaign got into full swing.  Mr. Fattal began sending lengthy fax transmissions to Westmount City Hall and to all its administrative departments, including the public works department and the library.  In his mailings, Mr. Fattal accused Westmount officials of “discrimination”, “deception”, “dishonesty”, “mischief”, “revenge”, “hatred”, “abuse”, and of imposing “hate penalties”.  He singled out Ms. Poirier and Mr. Bruce St. Louis, accusing them of engaging in a maliciousness conspiracy against him.  Mr. Fattal referred to Westmount’s employees as “idiots” and called its inspectors “harassment officers”.

[23]        On February 4, 2004, City lawyers again wrote to Mr. Fattal calling upon him to stop communicating with Westmount’s employees.[5]

[24]        Mr. Fattal did not stop.  Between 1999 and 2007, he faxed hundreds of pages of correspondence and photos to the City of Westmount and its employees.  At times, the fax transmissions were so lengthy they choked the City’s fax machines and disrupted its communications.  Often, Mr. Fattal faxed the same pages over and over again.

[25]        On a number of occasions, Mr. Fattal faxed gruesome photos of himself, bare-chested and gagging.  One photo showed a tortured Mr. Fattal, with bulging eyes, and an iron bar across his mouth.

[26]        Mr. Fattal also wrote to Westmount employees at their homes, mailing large envelopes to them stuffed with letters of complaint, photos of a bare-chested Mr. Fattal in chains, and other offensive documents.

[27]        Mr. Fattal sought out Westmount’s employees at their homes.  He visited Mr. Greg McBain at his home in May 2004, and in June 2005, Mr. Fattal appeared at the home of Westmount’s retired employee, Henry Neblett.  Both men were upset and concerned for the safety of their families. 

[28]        By November 2000, little progress had been made by Mr. Fattal to correct the deficiencies in the Saint Antoine building.  Westmount issued 20 notices of infraction for violations of the building and fire codes.  The infractions related to unclosed fire walls, the absence of safety latches on fire doors, untested fire extinguishers, a non-conforming sprinkler system, broken windows, a lack of parking spaces, deviations from approved building plans, accumulated garbage, etc. 

[29]        Mr. Fattal pleaded guilty to five of the infractions, but contested the others in municipal court, accusing the City of vindictiveness.  In December 2001, Mr. Fattal was convicted of the 15 offenses and fined a total of $16,800. 

[30]        Mr. Fattal appealed the decision to the Superior Court.  In a rambling fifty-one page brief, he charged Westmount with anti-Semitism and alleged that its employees were trying to ruin his health.  He claimed that he had been unfairly tried before a biased judge.  Mr. Fattal wrote: “Am I inside a court room in Iraq or Syria or a court room in Canada?”[6] 

[31]        The Superior Court dismissed Mr. Fattal’s appeal of the convictions.  Mr. Justice André Denis stated that Mr. Fattal had not shown any error by the municipal judge.   Respecting Mr. Fattal’s allegations of religious discrimination and harassment, Justice Denis concluded that Mr. Fattal “was not able to make any valid demonstration of these serious accusations”.  Nevertheless, the judge reduced the fines on the grounds that Mr. Fattal’s trust, the owner of the Saint Antoine building, was not a corporation and should not have been fined as such.[7]

[32]        In 2003, Mr. Fattal applied for a building permit to add a second storey to his Westmount home.  Once again, this led to interminable disputes with Westmount officials.  In protest, Mr. Fattal erected a number of flag poles on his front lawn, from which flew the flag of the City of Montreal.

[33]        In April 2005, another major dispute erupted between Mr. Fattal and the City of Westmount.  In March, a tenant in the Saint Antoine building complained to City officials that a plumber hired by Mr. Fattal had excavated a sewer pipe in his basement apartment, but had neglected to repair the pipe or close the hole.  A heap of soil and excrement had been left on the tenant’s living room floor.  The City sent their inspectors and ordered Mr. Fattal to remedy the situation at once, but Mr. Fattal ignored the request, as well as the City’s subsequent written notices.  Finally, the City sent in its own contractors to do the work.  It then sued Mr. Fattal to recover its costs of $5,800.

[34]        Mr. Fattal responded by filing a 124 page defence and cross-demand, accusing the City of a multitude of sins.[8]  His language was similar to that in his correspondence to the City.  He claimed that Westmount was:

Abusing and damaging my fragile aged ailing body causing sleepless nights, stiff ailing back muscles, wasting time to prepare for corrupt, malicious, unneeded court matters for personal harassments, hate, revenge, abuse of power while Karin Marks and others in wilful blindness lacks opposition, allowed corrupt waste of public finds, cripple my ability to work and to concentrate to conduct my own business claim $7,000 partial damages.

[35]        Mr. Justice Michel Pinsonnault of the Court of Québec was not swayed by Mr. Fattal’s accusations.  He granted Westmount’s action in damages and dismissed Mr. Fattal’s cross-claim, describing it as “totally ill founded” and concluding, “it is quite apparent to the Court that the present litigation stems from the obstinate refusal of Mr. Fattal to cooperate with the municipal authorities and to abide by the applicable rules and by-laws enacted by Montréal”.[9]

[36]        It was around this time that Mr. Fattal began suing Westmount employees in Small Claims Court in an effort to recover the fines he had paid to the City.  Mr. Fattal filed a total of eight suits against Westmount’s inspectors, public security officers and contractors.  In all cases, Mr. Fattal reduced his claim to $7,000 to stay within the small claims jurisdiction, thereby requiring the defendants to appear personally without the benefit of a lawyer.

[37]        Mr. Fattal’s small claims application, against Westmount Inspector Daniel de Vries, is typical of the others.[10]  Mr. Fattal declared that his claim was for:

Physical, psychological, and financial harm done resulted from rampage of 19 infraction notices along with his joint venture partners for revenge (…) Harm done for malicious hatred, serious damages incurred in vicious search in personal hate, revenge, discrimination, exploitation, religious persecution (Bar Mitzva + Meduzah) opportunities during a rampage using his own weapon of mass infraction notices in conjunction and cooperation of his joint venture incompetent partners (Mr. St. Louis and Ms. Poirier etc.) inside the tragedy and act of evil of the City of Westmount (…) My loss is well beyond $133,000, I reduce my claim to $7,000 solely for Small Claims Court purposes (…) The defendant will have no right to any form of lawyer in a Small Claims court (…).

[38]        Prior to taking these actions, Mr. Fattal served lengthy demand letters on each of the defendants, in which he repeated his long litany of complaints.  In several cases, Mr. Fattal offered the defendant a choice: either pay $7,000 within ten days, or pay $1,000 and provide Mr. Fattal with information regarding the “illegal activities” of Westmount employees, as well as the personal address, phone number, date of birth and social insurance number of ten employees identified in the letter.[11]

[39]        Mr. Fattal sent similar letters of demand to other Westmount employees who he did not take to court.[12]

[40]        Four of Mr. Fattal’s small claims suits were heard together on December 5, 2005.  In a brief seven-paragraph decision dismissing the actions, Mr. Justice Simon Brossard of the Court of Québec did not mince his words.  He stated that Mr. Fattal had not established the liability of the defendants in the least (ni de près ni de loin), and that during the trial Mr. Fattal had limited himself, despite the Court’s admonitions, to insulting the defendants and repeating irrelevant facts.  Justice Brossard described Mr. Fattal as a vexatious litigant.[13]

[41]        Mr. Fattal moved to revoke the Brossard judgment, but his motion was dismissed on December 22, 2005.

[42]        Despite Justice Brossard’s clear message, Mr. Fattal pursued his campaign of litigation against Westmount’s employees.  In 2006 and 2007, Mr. Fattal sued three more employees in Small Claims Court.  As with his previous actions, Mr. Fattal served as many as sixteen subpoenas on City employees, requiring them to attend as witnesses.  However, on the dates set for trial, Mr. Fattal failed to appear and the actions were dismissed.

[43]        In 2005, Westmount’s lawyers again called upon Mr. Fattal to refrain from contacting the City or its employees.  This time, they prepared draft legal proceedings that they sent to Mr. Fattal in order to demonstrate their resolve.  However, the strategy failed - if anything, it only propelled Mr. Fatal into new rounds of massive fax transmissions to the City and its lawyers.

[44]        After a particularly intense fax barrage in late 2007, Westmount’s patience finally ran out.  The City’s lawyers filed the present action and obtained a safeguard order prohibiting Mr. Fattal from having direct contact with the municipality or its employees.

[45]        Mr. Fattal did not live well with the safeguard order.  He repeatedly wrote to Westmount’s lawyers commanding them to drop their action.  Mr. Fattal complained that the safeguard order prevented him from borrowing books from the library, paying his municipal taxes, and voicing his concerns to city councillors.

[46]         In December 2010 and again in April 2012, Mr. Fatal unsuccessfully applied to the Court to vary the terms of the safeguard order.

[47]        Unable to directly communicate with the City or its employees, Mr. Fattal found other ways to vent his discontent.   Beginning in 2008, he directed his correspondence to Westmount’s lawyer, Mtre. David Banon.  At first, Mr. Fattal wrote lengthy letters, repeating his numerous charges against the City and its employees.  When Mtre. Banon asked Mr. Fattal to stop, Mr. Fattal reported him to the Quebec Bar, which declined to intervene. 

[48]        In 2011, Mr. Fattal got an iPhone and discovered text messaging.  Over the next two years, up until the eve of trial in February 2013, Mr. Fattal sent hundreds of text messages to Mtre. Banon, at all times of day and night, on weekends and holidays, including New Year’s Eve in 2012.  In his messages Mr. Fattal repeatedly insulted Mtre. Banon, declaring that he should be ashamed to represent “gangsters” and “criminals” who were intent on ruining Mr. Fattal’s health.  In one instance, Mr. Fattal attached a photo of himself and photos of several tombstones, clearly implying that Mtre. Banon and his clients wanted him in an early grave.

[49]        Mtre. Banon repeatedly asked Mr. Fattal to stop communicating with him, but the messages continued unabated, sometimes at the rate of several a day.

[50]        Mr. Fattal found other outlets for his anger.  He created a website on which he posted derogatory remarks and photos of Mayors Marks and Trent, Mr. St. Louis and Ms. Poirier.  He attached large posters to the front of his Saint Antoine building that bore similar statements and photos, as well as his website address.  These posters are still on the building today.  One of them identifies the building as the “Musée d’histoire d’harcèlement par Westmount”.  Mr. Fattal’s building is festooned with City of Montreal flags, indicating his displeasure at being located in the municipality of Westmount.

[51]        Mr. Fattal also circumvented the safeguard order.  In December 2012, Mr. Mario Gerbeau left his job in Westmount to work for the City of Saint-Lambert.  Recognizing that Mr. Gerbeau was no longer protected by the safeguard order, Mr. Fattal paid him an unexpected visit at his office, several days after Mr. Gerbeau had started his new employment.  Mr. Fattal asked Mr. Gerbeau to arrange a meeting with the mayor of Saint-Lambert.  Mr. Fattal declared that his intention was to convince the mayor to hire Ms. Poirier and thereby rid Mr. Fattal of his nemesis.

[52]        Thereafter, during a three-day period in early January 2013, Mr. Fattal sent 17 email messages to Mr. Gerbeau with voluminous attachments, including many of the letters and photos he had sent to Westmount before the safeguard order was issued.[14]  Mr. Gerbeau also received a copy of an email that Mr. Fattal sent to the mayor and councillors of the City of Saint-Bruno, inviting them to hire Ms. Poirier.

[53]        In the weeks and days prior to the trial in this case, Mr. Fattal wrote to the Court, repeating his complaints of discrimination and harassment by the City of Westmount.  During the five-day hearing in February 2013, Mr. Fattal vehemently asserted that he was a victim and that his actions were justified.


The request for a permanent injunction

[54]        The Court will deal first with the City of Westmount’s request for a permanent injunction.  In its re-amended pleading, the City asks that Mr. Fattal be prohibited from having direct contact with the City and its employees and that he be ordered to take down his website and remove the posters and photos on his Saint Antoine building.

[55]        The Court will issue a permanent injunction under article 751 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the circumstances demonstrate the necessity of such a remedy. 

[56]        In the present case, the Court is convinced that Mr. Fattal must be prevented from having direct contact with the City of Westmount and its employees, and that he should be ordered to remove all references to Westmount officials from his website and property.  As the above facts demonstrate, Mr. Fattal has acted abusively and exceeded the limits of reasonable speech.  He has convinced the Court that he will not change his behaviour unless he is restrained.

[57]        The evidence before the Court is that Westmount required Mr. Fattal to comply with its by-laws and building codes, and that Ms. Poirier and other municipal officials carried out their functions in accordance with these regulations when dealing with Mr. Fattal.

[58]        Mr. Fattal did not produce a single iota of evidence to show that the City of Westmount applied its by-laws improperly, unfairly or with intent to injure him.  He made no proof whatsoever that Westmount treated him differently from any other citizen.  He made no proof that Westmount’s officials acted towards him with spite or malice.

[59]        Mr. Fattal casts himself as a victim, but in so doing he evidently believes that the rules are not meant to apply to him.  He claims that he has rights, but forgets that he also has obligations like everyone else.

[60]        Mr. Fattal has a right to express his opinion, but that does not include the right to use defamatory language and repeat false accusations.  Mr. Fattal’s freedom of expression does not entitle him to transmit hundreds of documents to City departments, to mail dozens of letters to the homes of municipal employees, and to send hundreds of invasive text messages to City lawyers.  Mr. Fattal’s repetitive actions, which are clearly intended to disrupt and annoy, constitute harassment.

[61]        Mr. Fattal has been told several times by the courts that there is no basis for his accusations of discrimination and harassment by the City of Westmount.  Nevertheless, he continues to make these accusations with the same vigour, in a display of irrational behaviour.

[62]        For these reasons, a permanent injunction is necessary.

Declaration as a vexatious litigant

[63]        Quarrelsome conduct is dealt with at articles 84 to 90 of the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court.[15] Article 84 provides that when a person exercises litigious rights in an excessive or unreasonable manner, the Court may prohibit that person from instituting an action or an application without having obtained the prior authorization of the Chief Justice or a judge designated by him.

[64]        Legal writers and the courts have identified the main characteristics of a vexatious litigant.  These characteristics were described by professor Yves-Marie Morissette,[16] as he then was, and have been referred to in subsequent case law: [17]

·         Le quérulent montre de l'opiniâtreté et du narcissisme;

·         Il se manifeste plus souvent en demande qu'en défense;

·         Il multiplie les recours vexatoires y compris contre les auxiliaires de la justice. Il n'est pas rare, en effet, que ces procédures et ces plaintes soient dirigées contre les avocats, le personnel judiciaire, ou même les juges personnellement, qui font l'objet d'allégations de partialité et de plaintes déontologiques;

·         Quatrièmement, la réitération des mêmes questions par des recours successifs et ampliatifs, et à la recherche du même résultat malgré les échecs répétés de demandes antérieures, est fréquente;

·         Cinquièmement, les arguments de droit mis de l'avant par lui se signalent à la fois par leur inventivité et leur incongruité. Ils ont une forme juridique certes, mais à la limite du rationnel;

·         Sixièmement, les échecs répétés des recours ainsi exercés entraînent à plus ou moins longue échéance, son incapacité à payer les dépens et les frais de justice auxquels il est condamné;

·         Septièmement, la plupart des décisions adverses, sinon toutes, sont portées en appel ou font l'objet de demandes de révision ou de rétractations;

·         Huitièmement, il se représente seul;

·         Le juge Tardif en ajoute un autre en remarquant que souvent les procédures du plaideur quérulent sont truffées d'insultes et d'injures.

[65]        A number of these characteristics describe Mr. Fattal and his conduct.

[66]        First, by claiming that he is a victim of abuse, Mr. Fattal has placed himself at the center of his dispute with the City.  He has been unable to see the matter from any perspective other than his own personal one.  He has refused to change his views, despite the reality checks offered by his appearances in court.   In these aspects, Mr. Fattal bears the traits of narcissism and stubbornness that are typical of a vexatious litigant.

[67]        Second, Mr. Fattal has abused the legal system: he has taken eight small claims proceedings against Westmount’s employees.  He has refused to accept the court’s decisions, by bringing an appeal, a motion in revocation, and two motions to vary the safeguard order.  He has filed lengthy and incoherent pleadings, often filled with insults, into the court record.  Mr. Fattal has served an unreasonable number of subpoenas.  He has filed lawsuits only to abandon them at the last minute.  With no justification, Mr. Fattal has accused a municipal court judge of bias and reported Westmount’s lawyer to the Bar.

[68]        Third, Mr. Fattal has obstinately chosen to sue Westmount employees, despite being told by the Human Rights Commission in 2002, Mr. Justice Denis in 2004, Mr. Justice Brossard in 2005 and Mr. Justice Pinsonneault in 2009 that his complaints of abuse and discrimination are without basis.

[69]        Finally, for the most part, Mr. Fattal has represented himself in court.  Although he owns several revenue properties and lives near the summit of Westmount, Mr. Fattal claims, unconvincingly, that he cannot afford to hire a lawyer.   If he had, Mr. Fattal would have been forced to moderate his conduct and language before the Court.

[70]        In light of the above, the Court concludes that Mr. Fattal is a vexatious litigant.


[72]        GRANTS the plaintiff’s action;

[73]        DECLARES that Mr. Sam (Salim) Fattal is a vexatious litigant as regards the City of Westmount, its employees and elected officials;

[74]        PROHIBITS Mr. Sam (Salim) Fattal from instituting any action, application or legal proceeding against the City of Westmount, its employees or elected officials, in the Superior Court of Québec, the Court of Québec or any other court, tribunal or administrative body subject to the superintending and reforming power of the Superior Court of Québec, without obtaining the prior written approval of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, the Chief Justice of the Court of Québec, the president or director of the court, tribunal or administrative body, or a person designated by them;

[75]        ORDERS every officer or clerk to refuse the acceptance and filing of any procedure subject to the present Order, except if the procedure has received the prior written approval mentioned above;

[76]        ORDERS that any procedure filed in contravention of this Order be struck from the record;

[77]        ISSUES a permanent injunction:

[78]        PROHIBITING Mr. Sam (Salim) Fattal from presenting himself in person at the plaintiff’s offices, without a prior written appointment made through an attorney, and otherwise from entering into contact with the plaintiff’s employees at their place of work or at their domicile;

[79]        PROHIBITING Mr. Sam (Salim) Fattal from communicating, either verbally or in writing, with the plaintiff, its employees and elected officials, except through an attorney;

[80]        PROHIBITING Mr. Sam (Salim) Fattal from communicating with the plaintiff’s attorneys, Banon and Associates Inc., except by letter sent by Canada Post;

[81]        ORDERING Mr. Sam (Salim) Fattal to permanently remove, within ten days of this judgment, from the website http://www.westmountdefects.com, and from the building at 3035 Saint Antoine Street and from any other property owned by Mr. Sam Fattal and/or Atwater Trust, all photos of the City of Westmount’s employees, agents, attorneys or elected officials, present or past, and all mention of their names;

[82]        ORDERS the provisional execution of the present judgment, notwithstanding appeal;

[83]        WITH COSTS.








Mtre. David Banon

Banon & Associés

Attorneys for the plaintiff


Mr. Sam (Salim) Fattal

The defendant was not represented except for final submissions by Mtre. Denis Godbout



Dates of hearing :

February 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, 2013


Taken under advisement:     February 8, 2013

[1]     Exhibit P-39.

[2]     Exhibit P-40.

[3]     Exhibit P-49.

[4]     Exhibit P-48.

[5]     Exhibit P-14.

[6]     Exhibit P-16.

[7]     Salim Fattal v. City of Montréal, 500-36-002905-027, AZ-50235345 .

[8]     Exhibit P-44, Ville de Montréal v. Salim Fattal, 2009 QCCQ 4630 .

[9]     Ibid. Note that Westmount was a borough of the City of Montréal when this decision was rendered.

[10]    Exhibit P-15.

[11]    Exhibits P-21, P-28.

[12]    Exhibits P-14, P-21.

[13]    Sam Fattal v. Joseph Greco et al., December 5, 2005, 500-32-081353-049, Exhibit P-17.

[14]    Exhibit P-45.

[15]    R.R.Q., c. C-25, r.11.

[16]    Yves-Marie MORISSETTE, Abus de droit, quérulence et parties non représentées, (2004) 49 McGill L. J. 23.

[17]    Barreau du Québec c. Srougli, 2007 QCCS 685 .

Le lecteur doit s'assurer que les décisions consultées sont finales et sans appel; la consultation du plumitif s'avère une précaution utile.

© Société québécoise d'information juridique (SOQUIJ) - Tous droits réservés  |  SOQUIJ est une société qui relève du ministre de la Justice du Québec