A Montreal bus rider’s claim against the Société de transport de Montréal (STM), alleging unacceptable behaviour and sexual harassment by drivers, has been dismissed by the Court of Quebec’s Small Claims Division due to insufficient evidence.
The court’s ruling, issued in response to a claim filed by the Plaintiff in July 2021, outlined a series of complaints that began in 2019 and continued through 2022 and 2023. The Plaintiff accused STM drivers of failing to pull the bus close to the sidewalk at stops, erratically driving, and in some cases, engaging in what she described as sexually inappropriate behaviour.
However, the court found that the Plaintiff had failed to provide specific and verifiable details to support her claims, ultimately undermining her case.
Claims of misconduct and sexual harassment
The Plaintiff’s allegations centred on three primary complaints: drivers refusing to bring the bus close to the sidewalk, their erratic and unsafe driving habits, and behaviour she characterized as sexual harassment. According to the ruling, the incidents purportedly began in 2019, and she filed her legal claim in mid-2021.
“Most of the incidents in which the Plaintiff claims damages would have occurred in 2022 and 2023, more than one year after she filed her complaint,” the court noted.
One of the Plaintiff’s central assertions was that STM drivers often drove dangerously, making the bus lurch from side to side and speeding erratically. She further alleged that drivers would lift their hands from the wheel for extended periods, a claim that, if true, would have posed serious safety concerns for passengers.
Lack of corroboration and evidence
Despite the seriousness of these accusations, the court found significant gaps in the Plaintiff’s case. Key to the dismissal was the absence of supporting evidence to verify the Plaintiff’s allegations.
“No evidence was provided on the conduct of the drivers, no specific dates or times were noted, or the bus line on which these incidents occurred,” the court wrote in its decision. In addition, the court highlighted the fact that no other passengers had filed similar complaints regarding the drivers’ behaviour, which would have been expected if the incidents were as egregious as the Plaintiff described.
“[N]o complaints were ever filed by other passengers to the Defendant, which would have been surprising since the incidents reported by the Plaintiff would have been noted by other passengers, considering her allegations on the dangerous manner in which the buses were driven,” the ruling stated.
The Plaintiff also failed to file formal complaints with the STM regarding most of the incidents. The only record of a complaint from the Plaintiff involved a minor claim for reimbursement of $1.49, the cost of sunglasses she alleged were broken due to erratic bus driving.
STM procedures in place for complaints
The STM’s procedures for addressing passenger complaints were a significant point of discussion in the ruling. According to testimony from STM’s chief of operations, the agency has a robust system for tracking and addressing incidents reported by passengers.
The chief explained that “a simple call by a passenger would immediately prompt an incident report in which all the information regarding the incident would be recorded, allowing the STM to identify the driver.”
The absence of any such report from the Plaintiff led the court to further question the credibility of her allegations. The burden of proof rested with the Plaintiff, and in this case, the court found that she had failed to meet that burden.
Court questions Plaintiff’s credibility
The ruling emphasized the importance of verifiable evidence, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations. The Plaintiff’s failure to provide specific information about the dates, times, and bus routes involved in the incidents left her claims largely unsubstantiated.
“The burden of proving these incidents rests with the Plaintiff and considering the gravity of the many allegations raised by the Plaintiff, in light of the fact that no complaint was ever filed with the STM brings the Court to question the credibility of the Plaintiff,” the court stated.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support her case. The Plaintiff was ordered to cover $158 in court costs, which represented the judicial stamp fee associated with the STM’s contestation of the claim.
For more information, see Cohen c. Société de transport de Montréal, 2024 QCCQ 4318 (CanLII).
