Il est possible, pour une personne, de n'avoir aucune résidence à un moment précis

par Karim Renno

Irving Mitchell Kalichman

Les requêtes pour cautionnement pour frais sont un terrain fertile pour les discussions sur la notion de résidence au sens de la loi. Dans cette veine, nous attirons ce matin votre attention sur la décision récente rendue par l'Honorable juge Martin Bureau dans Heinen c. Baroud (2011 QCCS 4807) où il souligne qu'il est possible, à un moment précis, de ne pas avoir de résidence.


La Demanderesse a institué des procédures en dommages et intérêts contre les Défendeurs pour un montant de presque 1.8M$. Ces derniers, d'opinion qu'elle ne réside maintenant plus au Québec, demandent le versement d'un cautionnement pour frais au montant de 25 000$.

Le juge Bureau doit d'abord déterminer si la Demanderesse est toujours résidente. À cet effet, la preuve semble indiquer que bien qu'elle possède un permis de conduire et une carte d'assurance-maladie émis par le Québec, elle ne réside présentement pas au Québec. Selon le juge Bureau, le fait qu'elle ne semble pas résider ailleurs non plus n'est pas déterminant:

[24] In the spring 2011, during her stay in Québec, the applicant lived in a monastery at Beauvoir, a suburb of Sherbrooke. During her stay there, she met people who, aware of her story, offered her to stay at their residence while she was in Québec. The evidence shows that presently the plaintiff has no apartment in Québec. She does not have any furniture and has no permanent address. She claims to have an agreement to stay with friends or acquaintances when she is in Sherbrooke but she has no written agreement nor any lease with these people.

[25] The evidence shows that the plaintiff has not been in any gainful employment in Quebec since the end of August 2006. She has made no jobs search in Québec since that time.

[26] She also had no permanent place or residence in Germany since she lives with her family when she stays there. Germany is where most of her savings are in a bank account. Although, she holds such an account in Québec there is very little money in it.

[27] In her testimony, and in her recent writings, the plaintiff described herself as a citizen of three continents, namely Asia, Europe and North America. She testified that she stays either in India, Germany or Québec. It seems she has no permanent paid employment in any of these three continents and has no fixed residence. Her only point of attachment appears to be her family in Germany, the only place where she would have done job research since 2006; her friends in India with whom she would volunteer and have activities of meditation and her legal action in Quebec against the defendants.

[28] It is in the opinion of the Court that obviously, at least since Spring 2011, the plaintiff has no residence in Québec. She does perhaps have no residence elsewhere but this is not in itself relevant.

[29] The fact that the plaintiff holds a Québec driver's licence, a Québec insurance card and Canadian social insurance card are only possible signs of a residence but these facts do not themselves constitute decisive elements of residency.

Le texte intégral du jugement est disponible ici: http://bit.ly/nejJ23

Référence neutre: [2011] ABD 304