Big victory today for the rights of Montrealers.
A municipal court judge has tossed out $7,843 in fines issued by the City of Ste. Anne de Bellevue.
The municipality had attempted to punish a local landlord with 46 fines of $173 each for allowing graffiti to linger on his wall from mid-Dec. 2012.
The landlord was exonerated Friday, as the judge ordered him to pay one single fine of $145, while the other tickets were tossed out.
The judge deemed the fines to be be far out of proportion to any harm caused.
But more importantly, she ruled that the municipality of Ste Anne de Bellevue showed bad faith in its attempt to furtively ambush somebody with a pile of fines.
The saga began in Dec. 2012 when two Ste. Anne de Bellevue inspectors told the landlord of the newly-painted black squiggles on a wall.
An inspector explained in a brief phone call that the city has a policy of dealing with graffiti on private properties by painting over it with white paint.
Both sides agreed that this is what the city should do if the graffiti was not cleaned up by the owner within a few days.
The two sides, however, apparently hung up with entirely different understandings of the resolution.
The inspectors apparently believed that the landlord had banned them from painting over the graffiti.
The landlord understood that the city would come by and paint the graffiti white after a few days if he could not find matching paint in the storeroom.
The inspectors never painted anything and never said another word about the small and fast-fading bit of black paint scrawled on the wall.
What the landlord did not know was that the inspectors were busy writing up dozens of fines of $100 plus various fees, which rose the bill to about $173 per ticket.
The municipality later admitted that they made no effort to contact the landlord in any way during this process.
Indeed the municipality only mailed the tickets the following summer, long after the graffiti was gone.
The landlord only learned about the impending fines when a nearby merchant told him about them in a casual conversation in May 2013.
Why that merchant knew while the alleged offender was left in the dark remains a mystery.
The landlord had been in touch with various municipal officials about the building during the winter and those Ste. Anne de Bellevue municipal employees never mentioned any issue with graffiti.
Many of the tickets issued included notes claiming that the landlord had refused repeatedly to erase the graffiti, a claim proven patently false in court.
Friday's verdict affirms that authorities have an obligation to show good faith and attempt to warn alleged offenders before sending them multiple fines.
Contacting and warning alleged offenders before issuing fines is standard procedure elsewhere but any failure by municipal authorities to make that effort could now result in fines being tossed out.
Just prior to the trial, the municipality of Ste. Anne de Bellevue likely realized its folly and attempted to back out of the prosecution.
The courthouse prosecutor offered the landlord a plea agreement which would have seen him pay just three fines. The other pile of 43 fines would be dismissed.
A Montreal prosecutor, likely less familiar with the details of the case, declined to ratify the deal, so the lame duck prosecution went forward, with two days of testimony and cross-examination.
As a result, a Montreal courthouse prosecutor bears part of the blame for this wasteful legal fiasco.
The lengthy verdict read by the judge Friday at the West Island courthouse on St. John's Blvd. touches on various nuances of law.
The text was not available at the time of this writing but we will post it when it comes in.
The landlord in question is, of course, myself,
The lengthy battle was extremely stressful but hopefully the verdict will help prevent others from legal abuse.
In a few small way I feel part of a long tradition of the Montreal civil rights court battlers whom I greatly admire, from Fred Christie, to John Switzman, to Frank Roncarelli.
A municipal court judge has tossed out $7,843 in fines issued by the City of Ste. Anne de Bellevue.
 |
| City inspectors failed to contact a landlord whose building sits just 100 metres from town hall |
The landlord was exonerated Friday, as the judge ordered him to pay one single fine of $145, while the other tickets were tossed out.
The judge deemed the fines to be be far out of proportion to any harm caused.
But more importantly, she ruled that the municipality of Ste Anne de Bellevue showed bad faith in its attempt to furtively ambush somebody with a pile of fines.
The saga began in Dec. 2012 when two Ste. Anne de Bellevue inspectors told the landlord of the newly-painted black squiggles on a wall.
An inspector explained in a brief phone call that the city has a policy of dealing with graffiti on private properties by painting over it with white paint.
Both sides agreed that this is what the city should do if the graffiti was not cleaned up by the owner within a few days.
The two sides, however, apparently hung up with entirely different understandings of the resolution.
The inspectors apparently believed that the landlord had banned them from painting over the graffiti.
The landlord understood that the city would come by and paint the graffiti white after a few days if he could not find matching paint in the storeroom.
The inspectors never painted anything and never said another word about the small and fast-fading bit of black paint scrawled on the wall.
What the landlord did not know was that the inspectors were busy writing up dozens of fines of $100 plus various fees, which rose the bill to about $173 per ticket.
The municipality later admitted that they made no effort to contact the landlord in any way during this process.
Indeed the municipality only mailed the tickets the following summer, long after the graffiti was gone.
The landlord only learned about the impending fines when a nearby merchant told him about them in a casual conversation in May 2013.
Why that merchant knew while the alleged offender was left in the dark remains a mystery.
The landlord had been in touch with various municipal officials about the building during the winter and those Ste. Anne de Bellevue municipal employees never mentioned any issue with graffiti.
Many of the tickets issued included notes claiming that the landlord had refused repeatedly to erase the graffiti, a claim proven patently false in court.
Why the verdict matters to you
So why does this strange case matter to Montrealers?Friday's verdict affirms that authorities have an obligation to show good faith and attempt to warn alleged offenders before sending them multiple fines.
Contacting and warning alleged offenders before issuing fines is standard procedure elsewhere but any failure by municipal authorities to make that effort could now result in fines being tossed out.
Just prior to the trial, the municipality of Ste. Anne de Bellevue likely realized its folly and attempted to back out of the prosecution.
The courthouse prosecutor offered the landlord a plea agreement which would have seen him pay just three fines. The other pile of 43 fines would be dismissed.
A Montreal prosecutor, likely less familiar with the details of the case, declined to ratify the deal, so the lame duck prosecution went forward, with two days of testimony and cross-examination.
As a result, a Montreal courthouse prosecutor bears part of the blame for this wasteful legal fiasco.
The lengthy verdict read by the judge Friday at the West Island courthouse on St. John's Blvd. touches on various nuances of law.
The text was not available at the time of this writing but we will post it when it comes in.
The landlord in question is, of course, myself,
The lengthy battle was extremely stressful but hopefully the verdict will help prevent others from legal abuse.
In a few small way I feel part of a long tradition of the Montreal civil rights court battlers whom I greatly admire, from Fred Christie, to John Switzman, to Frank Roncarelli.
Justice always prevails! I am so happy for you. Big risk to try to do what is right - but you were redeemed. Thanks for fighting the good fight. Next up: Legalized marijuana cafe to replace the depanneur in your building!
ReplyDeleteInteresting case and congrats for winning one against a mean spirited city. Cash grab tactics seem a convenient way to increase the city coffers and cover for incompetence.
ReplyDeleteWhy is a Montreal prosecutor involved and at the court in Pte. Claire? Isn't Ste Annes a municipality with resources?
The City of Montreal prosecutes all cases on the island, including in Pointe-Claire... a cop once put "Montreal-Est" on a ticket as prosecutor, Judge Stephane Briere ruled it had no force and effect as such a prosecutor is not authorised to initiate judicial proceedings! The Point de service de l'ouest is located in Pointe Claire, though, and I presume that is where the trial happened.
DeleteFight the power
ReplyDeleteNicely done.
ReplyDeleteAnti-graffiti laws should be enforced by utilizing more street cameras. Why on earth would any property-owner allow it to remain? What message does this send to vandals?
ReplyDeleteLook at this mess on Van Horne Avenue west of Waverly:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.5273185,-73.6082793,3a,75y,123.97h,91.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZYMaAnBoXA04UmHDxcdoIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I am enthusiastically for fining landlords who allow graffiti to linger on their properties. In my opinion, this is by far the most effective method for combating graffiti. This whole thing looks like it was handled very badly by the city though. Strange how often we hear of weird governmental goings-on in this little town.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteFWIW.
Here is an old view looking West from rear car of an Eastbound train on CNR @ Ste Anne de Bellevue.
The Caption is WRONG, the CN train is going towards Montreal.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AvqkGiiQQao/Uvgws_MpdKI/AAAAAAAANuY/GD6EVV9KySo/s1600/blogbarriger305steanne+debellevue.jpg
CPR is to right.
From this site.
http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.ca/2014_02_01_archive.html
The water tower once had cast concrete lettering and a wide band, highlighted in red around it's upper portion which stated St Anne de Bellevue.
The power transmission towers to left were replaced by 1960.
The 'SS' on the round metal sign to right of track indicates Spring Switch, which allows a train leaving the siding going West to pull right thru switch points and not having to stop. The spring inside mechanism with a hydraulic between the right rail and the switch stand will close switch behind as train proceeds. The hydraulic prevents the points from slamming as wheels open and close switch in succession.
The switch lamp is electrified as has no chimney for oil and wick burner.
Smoke to right is from locomotive pulling this train.
We used to go out to the CPR station in the distance on right, and stand on the platform as freights sped past @ 40+ miles per hour making a run for the hill beyond Dorion.
Thank You.
Municipal courts are stupid, they only exist to waste time. Municipal court officials are not much smarter, especially judges who only drone about and blindly follow the rules.
ReplyDeleteSeveral years ago, I was slapped with 12 (twelve) $150 fines (for a total of $1800) for taking pictures at the place des festivals, under a rescinded article of a bylaw that was erroneously interpreted.
Some of the tickets were automatically rescinded, but one was processed in a special secret courtroom without room for the public (this is where they treat road offences that are not contested - apparently, that ticket (of which I was never given a copy) was processed as a road offence). Other were cancelled when I met the prosecutor and showed him that the bylaw article was rescinded by showing him the other bylaw that rescinded the article.
Until I met a stupid city prosecutor, Martin Bourgeois, who would not believe that the article was rescinded and insisted that it sould go to trial. Of course at that time, the moronic judge would not want me to prove her that the bylaw was rescinded, futher lenghtening the court process.
A week before the actual trial, I managed to get a certified copy of the actual bylaw from the hands of a very high level city legal official (I will not name him nor his post because he was very courteous, professional and took the time to take care of me in the midst of budget preparations), who, as he looked for the actual bylaw in his computer system, pestered about the de-mergers because "Charest had promises to keep".
When it finally came to trial, no sign of the moron Martin Bourgeois. Instead was a big stupid ugly fat bitch prosecutor who curtly told me to go home because it would be dismissed. I replied that I will do so when I'll hear the judge say so. This blatant disregard of whatever honesty she might have believed to have greatly insulted her, and she haughtily avoided me as she buzzed about the defendants of other cases prior to the actual trial.
When I saw he slither into the courtroom, I went right behind her. Alas! This was presumably a special time when the rabble (that's us, John Q. Public) is not allowed, but only the holiest who have the sanctity of lawyerdum bestowed upon them.
The bitch started hollering about me not having any business there. I countered by "who the fuck do you think you are? It's my trial, and I want to see the judge throw out your stupid case". Flustered by such strong language in a courtroom, the big fat bitch shut her piehole as the rabble was finally allowed into the courtroom.
Everyone sat down around me, still throwing fire at the bitch through my eyes.
Then the judge came in, all arose, and when eventually my name came up, the big fat bitch obsequiously declined to pursue the case and wished to withdraw it, which the judge did without further question.
I should have asked the judge why did the city decided to pursue a case based on a bylaw that no longer exists...
Fucking useless cock-dripping, ass-wiping morons.
The decision is here.... Judge Marie Brouillet, the one who sneers from the bench. The key was Article 230 of the Code of Penal Procedure... Article 155 of the Code allows them to claim separate offences per day of being in offence, but Article 230 is designed to prevent an avalanche of tickets, as it states that if the prosecutor waits a long time to inform defendant, then there shall be no penalty to be paid for every separate offence representing the days when they delayed that information... so officially it is GUILTY on ALL counts but a fine for only ONE.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccm/doc/2016/2016qccm13/2016qccm13.html
Any police intervention to apply an offence that does not exist is unlawful... so when they ruled that all those P-6 tickets were bad, guess what that means for the class action lawsuits... judges have NO CHOICE but to rule the arrests unlawful...
ReplyDeleteThe whole case can be summed up by these two articles of the Code of Penal Procedure... Judge Brouillet, of whom I have a very disfavourable opinion, was simply applying the law. I saw her behave abominably towards friends of mine... and I cannot praise her in any way... these are the two provisions deciding this case...
ReplyDelete155. Where an offence has continued for more than one day, it shall be counted as a number of offences equal to the number of days or parts of a day during which the offence has continued and the offences may be described in a single count.
1987, c. 96, a. 155.
230. Where an offence continued for more than one day, the judge is not bound to impose a sentence for each day or part of a day for which the offence continued if he is satisfied that the prosecutor unduly delayed to institute proceedings.
1987, c. 96, a. 230.
The first provision allows the city to serve a ticket a day over the life of a continued offence. The second says that if the city decides to lay in wait and ambush someone with tickets, that the judge can waive the penalty for those tickets... So if a city does the same thing again, then Article 230 of the Code of Penal Procedure may be invoked to neutralise the dirty trick. Thank that provision there.
By the way, Judge Brouillet broke nearly a decade of silence as for publishing judgements. She even held off (thankfully) on publishing judgement regarding a rather notorious figure who was recently before her court and of whom clearly she disapproves...
Brilliant! Thanks Lord High. Most of my many court appearances have been at the Rental Board, and I've noticed that female judges often seemed dismissive or even hostile towards me (as a landlord I guess). So I was quite worried that I'd get similar treatment, so I made sure to go on and on endlessly. Had I known about those two excellent articles I would have brought them up for sure. While waiting I also saw her dismiss a ticket for a woman who brought props to recreate why she was not guilty.
ReplyDeleteThis particular judge, like any other, has her own notions... this one for example does not like it when you film the cops, or are curious in any way about what they are doing... A cop attacked me out of nowhere (I avoided being struck, thankfully), a friend of mine wanted to know the badge number of the assailant, he refused to give it to her, he ticketed her for obstructing his ticketing of some other person, defendant explained reason for wanting to know "he attacked my friend", Brouillet said "Why did you need to know his badge number? I still don't get it!" What am I supposed to think of someone like that? Oh and what about the language of the judgement read from the bench? Was that in French, is this a language you could understand well? This judge did something that I found ... wrong... on that level, one that has a practical damaging effect on the person in question, which is not the same one I mentioned just now... she also got the defendant's name wrong when reading out the judgement...
Delete