Court says CSL SAQ did not accuse customer of theft

Small Claims Court Judge Brigitte Gouin ruled recently that employees of the Société des Alcools du Québec store in the Côte St. Luc Shopping Centre in CSL did not accuse a customer of theft.

Allan Barbarush sued the SAQ for $15,000, claiming that on March 30, 2023, while looking for a particular brand of wine and not finding it, he decided to leave the store. The customer claimed he was then “verbally assaulted and humiliated” by two employees, who he said accused him, in front of members of the public, of theft.

The plaintiff said police were called, surveillance footage was reviewed and no evidence of theft was discovered.

The SAQ countered that according to store manager Ana Bertha Gallegos Barcenas and cashier Paula Soto, the plaintiff entered the store with a grocery bag behind his back and Barcenas “had reasonable grounds to believe that Barbarush had left the branch with an unpaid item.”

The defendant’s witnesses said the conversation only involved the plaintiff being asked if he forgot to pay for an item, took place for a short period of time, four members of the public were likely out of earshot of the exchange and “there was no public demonstration of humiliation—quite the contrary.”

Barcenas testified that “in my work, I have frequently seen customers leave a branch without paying for the products they were carrying in a moment of distraction, without necessarily intending to steal them. For this reason, I asked the applicant if he had forgotten to do so (pay).

“In response to my question, the [plaintiff] hesitated and stammered before replying, ‘Are you imbeciles or what?’, without ever answering the question.”

The judge agreed with the SAQ employees’ version of events, adding that the plaintiff “was free to leave the premises without hindrance or further intervention.

“The employees also did not request to search his bag, which he was holding when he left the store. It was the plaintiff himself who returned to the defendant’s branch a second time, going to the manager’s office to have a heated conversation about the previous exchange. He left the premises shortly afterward without further intervention from the defendant. The plaintiff then returned to the branch a third time to have another heated conversation with the manager, and during this exchange, he decided to call the SPVM himself.”

The judge added that the plaintiff had the burden of proof in regards to any fault by the SAQ.

“As appears from the evidence presented, the exchange in the mall aisle was brief, only one question was asked in a tone devoid of any aggression, and no accusations of theft were made against the plaintiff. It was also demonstrated, as appears from the testimonies of Soto and Barcenas, that they acted on the basis of objective facts linked to the plaintiff’s behaviour, including successive handling of several bottles in the presence of a half-open bag, his brief presence in the branch and leaving without purchase.”

For these reasons, the judge ruled in favor of the SAQ. n