I am quite surprised I let this get by me. The top case in the list of top cases for 2012 is one I distributed to my French speaking friends, jokingly. Langevin, 2012 QCCS 613 (CanLII) is great. I am so proud that the top case on CanLII is in francais! For those Anglos in the ROC (Rest of Canada) or elsewhere who want to know what all the fuss is about, here is an extremely unofficial translation from Google translate (I may fix it up sometime int he future, but this brutal rendering should give you a general idea:
2012 QCCS 613
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
February 22, 2012
IN THE CHAIR
ALAIN MICHAUD, j.c.s.
SYLVIO LANGEVIN, [...] St. Euphemia (Québec) [...]
 Sylvio Langevin claims ownership of the Earth . In another case initiated on the same day, he claims that the planets Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, and the four large moons of Jupiter. 
 At the hearing, the applicant wishes to amend the second application to add its claims Neptune and Pluto, as well as the space between each planet across the galaxy. 
I – FACTS
 Although Mr. Langevin demand writing separate judgments for each of its requests, the Court is authorized to make a single judgment against two applications which raise the same arguments in the representation of property of the same nature : this is true in reading both handwritten queries, which is the full transcript in Annexes 1 and 2 of this judgment.
 On 27 December 2011, “by chance by causing me to clean up various documents in my closet …” , Mr. Langevin find newspaper articles providing some details about the planets Mercury and Jupiter  as well as observation missions NASA on several planets in the solar system.
 He sees a unique opportunity for these planets, and reports that he “thought of making a collection like others are a collection of hockey cards.” As the five planets and four moons are referred wanderers and they are part of the solar system , Mr. Langevin is certain that they have no owner.
 He is alone, and without even a respondent to his requests, because “if there was a respondent, it would be God, but it is not tangible and not invitable as respondent.”
 At the hearing, the amendment request permission to also claim ownership of Neptune and Pluto, as well as “all the space that is without oxygen and without gravity for objects between each planet the size of our galaxy … “, and this – he said to the audience -” to avoid any misunderstanding. “
 He explains this claim on the area, saying he learned that the Chinese were planning to send space stations in space: Mr. Langevin is not it form another city Chinese space above him.
 In the related case, the idea of claiming ownership of the planet Earth, came the “07-01-12 around 18:30, I had to lose temperature and by chance I had the idea read some dictionary definitions … “, namely those words planet earth.
 Like the others, the planet Earth has no owner, “so it is obvious and beyond doubt it is a wandering star belonging to the solar system, certain that I rightfully as owner possession and administration (single) … “.
 Mr. Langevin said that three requests he would become the owner of nine planets, the Moon and the four satellites of Jupiter, for a total of fourteen planets.
 The third issue – it must be clear – is where Mr. Langevin has recently claimed ownership of Mars and the Moon. At our hearing, it is not known whether judgment was rendered in this case, nor has taken cognizance; officers of the civil court would have however stated that judgment had been pronounced against him.  He wants to learn at the same time he read the decisions on these two claims, “to challenge” he adds.
 Mr. Langevin said he is not a lawyer but a private citizen, he mentions, however, have a good experience in applications since the 2000s, indicating that these refer disputes between other four situations:
a) the fact that he fell into a trap of misinformation, as a breeding boar he had;
b) the fact that his brother  has sold his farm without administrator permission;
c) the fact that people in authority, for the Queen had been “six false psychologist” on it and have tried to “get to delusional”;
d) the fact that he discovered a coup government of Canada at war in Afghanistan.
 Mr. Langevin therefore relates have initiated 51 complaints against the Government of Quebec that led to a judgment declaring quarrelsome litigant in relation to the Attorney General of Quebec [QMP] . After four or five other queries against the Government of Canada, he adds they have been declared vexatious litigant to place the Attorney General of Canada [PGC] .
 Mr. Langevin said wait for the right moment to set aside two decisions in question, which violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
II – ANALYSIS
 On the merits of the two claims here undertaken by Sylvio Langevin, it is not necessary to say more than what the judge wrote Étienne Parent December 19, 2011, in the folder to the planet Mars and the Moon “On its face, the request of the applicant has no legal basis and must be rejected” .
 The claim of the Earth is therefore rejected as to the other planets in the solar system.
III – THE BEHAVIOUR OF quarrelsome SYLVIO LANGEVIN
1 – The history of the applicant
 An inventory probably incomplete litigation initiated by the applicant indicates that it has undertaken since 2001 at least 29 action in the Superior Court, at the same time he spoke 12 times in the Court of Appeal, as well as 4 times in the Supreme Court of Canada.
 Among these disputes, Mr. Langevin continued QMP 12 times – an injunction or damages – for a total value of $ 74.5 million. He also used these two forms of redress by pursuing the PGC for a total value of $ 4 million original, by amendment, he has taken his claim for damages to more than a billion dollars.
 All the actions taken by Mr. Langevin and under six names or names of different presentations , were rejected and led to the formation of large bills of costs that have – pretty much – never been recovered by prosecutors and opposing parties.
 The two statements querulous – limited scope – imposed by judges Babin and Bélanger in 2008 and 2009, were initially dampened the enthusiasm of the applicant to undertake prosecution repeatedly. Mr. Langevin seems to have understood – as illustrated by the three cases revealed his interest in the planets – that the absence of respondents to its procedures to reduce her risk of being mean again a request for a declaration of querulous .
 It is here that the Court should intervene.
2 – The concept of querulous
 Justice Yves-Marie Morissette, then a professor at McGill University, became interested in the notion of quarrelsomeness, and reported in 2004 that the main characteristics associated jurisprudence vexatious litigants:
- First, the litigant vexatious demonstrated tenacity and narcissism;
- Second, the litigant vexatious manifests demand rather than defense;
- Third, the quarrelsome litigant vexatious appeals multiplies, including against officers of the court. It is not rare, in fact, that these procedures and complaints are directed against lawyers, court staff or even the judges personally, which are the subject of allegations of bias and ethics complaints;
- Fourth, the repetition of the same questions used by successive ampliatifs and looking for the same results despite the repeated failures of previous requests are frequent;
- Fifth, the legal arguments put forward by the litigant vexatious is reported both by their inventiveness and incongruity. They have a legal form, of course, but the limit of the rational;
- Sixth, the repeated failures and remedies exercised by the party querulous lead to more or less long-term inability to pay court costs and legal fees to which it is bound;
- Seventh, most decisions adverse, if not all, are appealed by the party querulous or requests are subject to revision or withdrawal;
- Finally, eighth, as already noted, the litigant vexatious is representing himself. 
 The same text mentions that the portrait is the French psychiatrist Mallet Sandrine this syndrome: “the querulous processive [...] say that they have been wronged, their property was looted: they multiply the trial, appeal, refuse any conciliation suspect corruption of judges, bad faith or collusion of witnesses “. 
 In a decision very supported on the matter, the Chief Justice André Wery this study takes the judge Morissette and added:
As you can see, the problem is a querulous based on paranoid thinking that the beliefs of the person are disproportionate to the reality and the constant crusades from a judicial imaginary delirium. 
 Sections 84 and 85 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the Superior Court  have been adopted to counter the excesses of some citizens who abuse their right to sue:
84. Prohibited except by permission. If a person acts in a quarrelsome manner, that is to say, if it exercises its right to sue for excessive or unreasonable, the court may prohibit a demand for justice without prior authorization.
85. Order. The order is general or limited to one or more districts or against one or more persons. In extreme cases it can even prevent access to a courthouse.
 These provisions are in line with Article 4.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Articles 6 and 7 of the Civil Code, which expressly provide that a party can not be excessive or unreasonable, and must exercise his civil rights requirements of good faith.
 The Canadian judicial system is the envy of many other jurisdictions around the world, but – you might expect – it is expensive. As mentioned Judge Wery:
It should be used by litigants in a reasonable and responsible. You can not only use the judicial system to harass, intimidate or exhausted financially, psychologically or physically opponent. 
 Given these parameters, we must ask ourselves whether Sylvio Langevin behavior justifies the application of Articles 84 and 85 of the Regulation adopted under the general powers inherent in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Superior Court .
3 – The decision
 When the Court declares to have taken cases against 51 QMP, Sylvio Langevin apparent pride that appears difficult to reconcile with the objectives of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus Judge Babin its decision of 29 January 2008, shows off the many reasons for it to declare the applicant quarrelsome litigant, compared QMP . Justice Bélanger will demonstrate the same querulous next year in light of established claims against the CMP this time .
 Now it has been declared vexatious litigant in the place of these two adversaries “natural” Mr. Langevin began today a new action sequence, using imagination to claim ownership of the planets in our solar system . Where will it end there?
 In reviewing the minutes of the first application of this kind of Mr. Langevin – one to Marc and the Moon – there is only twelve minutes of presentation to the applicant was sufficient to embarrass the judiciary significantly.
 The following two queries read – here reproduced as Appendices 1 and 2 – provides a demonstration of continuity in this disorder and contamination by the applicant of the judiciary, which will last until the status of Mr. quarrelsome litigant Langevin has not been widespread.
 Similarly, the applicant’s statements reported in the first chapter illustrate this judgment is no claim to the test, and that all goods stray or ownerless apparent – material or immaterial – are likely to be a subsequent collection by it.
 It is of course unacceptable that Mr. Langevin uses the justice system inappropriately in this way wasting time and energy of the various judicial actors, while all litigants need full access to these valuable resources .
 On a more special for its own protection, the Court can not tolerate more than the applicant exhausted his meager resources to pay legal stamps associated with the opening of numerous lawsuits, or bills of costs that are inevitably they close: hundreds of thousands of dollars already owed by Mr. Langevin under this head.
 In these circumstances, the Tribunal has no hesitation in concluding that the applicant meets behavior by the main features of the querulous, therefore, the decision is required to expand its quarrelsome litigant status to all remedies it may undertake in the Superior Court of Quebec.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:
 REJECTS two claims taken by the applicant in cases numbered 200-05-019491-120 and 200-05-019492-128;
 DECLARES quarrelsome litigant the applicant Sylvio Langevin, Langevin Martin alias, alias Martin Sylvio Langevin, aka Martin Sylvio Langevin, aka Martin (Sylvio) Langevin, aka Sylvio (Martin) Langevin;
 NO introduce the applicant or deposit, directly or indirectly, any proceedings – whether to institute proceedings or during the proceedings – the clerk of the Superior Court of all Courts of the Province of Quebec, unless the prior written permission of the Chief Justice, the Associate Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec, or any other judge designated by one of them ;
 NO clerks, civil servants and judicial officers of the province of Quebec to receive, stamp, issue, serve, save in the scroll, swear or register on the role of hearing any proceedings which have been instituted, or initiated prepared by the applicant, with the exception of those that have been previously authorized in writing, in accordance with the preceding paragraph;
 ORDERS the Clerk of the Superior Court of the District of Quebec to make the meaning of this judgment to the applicant Sylvio Langevin;
 AUTHORIZED service of this judgment to the clerks and bailiffs of the Province of Quebec, by fax;
 ORDERS the provisional execution of this judgment, notwithstanding appeal;
 TOLL given the particular circumstances of the case.
ALAIN MICHAUD, j.c.s.
[...] St. Euphemia (Quebec)
Date of Hearing:
January 13, 2012
Province of Quebec
District of Quebec
1. Hello! Honorable superior court judge
2. The facts
27-12-2011 to by chance by causing me to clean up various documents in my closet, I found two newspaper clippings and Press headline that reads as follows:
A. Mercury reveals:
B. En route to Jupiter;
WOW: I had to get your hands on a real treasure! or details spacial exploration of NASA since the year 1970 ± discover more Italian astronomer Galileo …. you understand!
It’s obvious I made an immediate connection to the effect that my previous folder 200-05-019484-117 Judge made the decision on 16-12-11 and I am sure that his judgment promised be made before the end of January 2012 will be favorable to me giving me permission to become owning possession and administration (only) of the planet Mars and my oral amendment to the hearing of the moon (the earth);
I said yes internally Cest Ca present today with my request I just added the other planet and moon the other, and I’ll be happy human possessed the complete collection of spacial exploration was achieved and achievable and even their wholes the exploitable surface located accesible loan us the earth;
3. Today with my present application I want the Tribunal’s permission to become owning possession and administration (only) of the planets and the moon detail as follows:
A. the planet Mercury;
C. the planet Jupiter;
D. the planet Saturn;
E. the planet Uranus
F. 4 large moon and Jupiter
A. I heard an applicant alone without respondent;
B. the planets Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and 4 large moons of Jupiter, she ons no owner, so it is obvious and beyond doubt wholes five planets and 4 large moons of Jupiter they all come back to me right to possession as owner and administration (single) following my request legitimate authorization of the Court Article 885 – CpcQ;
C. principals and two law articles for stewardship me 9 properties are sections 1 and 947 of the Civil Code of Québec;
D. I denounce a situation of force majeure in effect: on 12-12-2011 at 11:00 at the Palais de justice de Montmagny, (my district of Montmagny) the clerk Johanne Lamarre and director François Paré ons they refused mouvrir a civil matter of authorization art. 885 C.P.C.Q. either take my previous request for March and the moon, so I called 911 and SQ 2 policemen Gaudrau Choinard and came to his transplant result nothing changed its continued their refusal, that I was obliged to do in Quebec n / a 200-05-019484-117;
So Montmagny refused my previous query, then sure they would refuse my request for this today is similar, so I am required force majeure forced me to assert the right to act in the District Quebec Thank you!
E. I denounce my farm use parental donnation my mother and my father legitimate act notarized 93159 is in crisis since October 28, 2004 there is continuity of refusing to admit my possession administration by Her Majesty the Queen;
Result in my letter box areas and a number of civic door 124 in his prison cell in the basement of the courthouse Montmagny;
So Honorable judge to ensure my present application filed your judgment Quebec Civil Registry or I’ll take possession in person at the right time;
F. I have received a gift denounces Thank you! to my previous request n / 200-05-019484-117 the Civil Registry of Quebec 12-12-11 Indeed the Clerk Claudia Bellavance exempt from paying my $ 116.00 and the Director of the Civil Registry Brassard approved acsepter verbal before me and judge my hearing a presentation on the 16-12-11 acsepter also approved by me confirming that free report had no impact on the validity of my request for the future. Thank you!
Tomorrow’s energy so I hope (to qualify) has the same free gift at the same $ 116.00 for the opening of my civil record this application;
I’ll check has confirmed the appropriate box with an X below dessou:
The Civil Registry me a second gift is exempt from paying me $ 116.00 for the opening of my file this application …. Thank you!
The clerk made me pay the price of $ 116.00 for the opening of my civil record my present application;
5. I included this request to my attached the 2 pieces below dessou;
A. Cutting the paper entitled Mercury Press unfolds;
B. Cutting the newspaper La Presse entitled En route to Jupiter;
6. My present application is well founded in fact and law;
7. For this reason, the Court should present to welcome my request, thanks!
8. order by the Tribunal welcomes this request and give permission to the applicant art. 885 C.P.C.Q. be the owner of possession and administration (only) of the planet Mercury, so Mercury becomes the property legally and legally a kind of extension of the planet earth, then the valid laws of the land they apply to the management of including mercury especially art. 1 and 947 CCQ Whereas the applicant is a current owner Quebec Canada;
… [Paragraphs 9 to 13: findings identical to those of paragraph 8, but this time for Venus (9), Jupiter (10) Saturn (11), Uranus (12) and the four large moons of Jupiter (13)] …
14. The all without charge. Thank you!
St. Euphemia this Jan. 5, 2012
applicant and lawyer personally
Province of Quebec
District of Quebec
1. Hello! Superior court Judge
2. The facts:
07-01-2012 to the 18:30, I had to lose temperature and by chance I had the idea to read some dictionary definition that this detail as follows:
A. Planet wandering star, the earth is part of a body system called planet, see attached Exhibit A;
B. Earth belongs to the solar system inhabited by man, see attached Exhibit B;
3. The right:
A. I heard an applicant (only) with no respondent;
B. Planet Earth has no owner, so CEST obvious and beyond doubt its a wandering star belonging to the solar system, certain that I was rightful possession as owner and administration (single) following my request legitimate authorization of the Tribunal art. C.P.C.Q. 885;
Note: cepandant I want to add a safety condition good understanding which will be applied; assumed that I used on the surface of my planet earth is my floor my background, my subsoil, I am required to obtain permission Tribunal art. 885 CPCQ to approve my / me is the project (s) by judgment to make sure that I not violate / law (s) set (s) of human rights ons of various acquired and they lived there have the same temperature has the right to appeal as a respondent;
C. and 2 principals law article for my planet earth stewardship are sections 1 and 947 of the CCQ;
D. I denounced a situation of force majeure in effect: on 12-12-2011 at 11:00 at the Palais de justice de Montmagny, (my district of Montmagny) the clerk Johanne Lamarre and director François Paré ons they refused mouvrir a civil matter of authorization art. 885 CPCQ either take my previous request for March and the moon, so i called 911 and SQ 2 policemen Gaudreau and his Choinard came to his transplant outcome not changed their continued refusal, that I was obliged to do in Quebec n / a 200-05-019484-117;
So Montmagny refused my previous query so sure they would refuse my request today this is a similar, therefore I am obliged force majeure having to prove me right to act in the district of Quebec; Thanks !
E. I denounce my farm use parental donnation my mother and my father legitimate act notarized 93159 is in crisis since October 28, 2004;
there is continuity of refusing to admit my possession and administration by Her Majesty the Queen in my box result rural letter and my door civic number 124 in his prison cell in the basement of the courthouse Montmagny;
So Honorable judge to ensure my present application filed your judgment Quebec Civil Registry or I’ll take possession in person at the right time;
F. I denounce me for two cases before 200-05-019484-117 also 200-05-019491-120, I have not paid cétais free to open two files to me Civil Registry of Quebec, so today I ‘ I hope to have her third gift is free to open my file of my present petition, and I denounce below dessou
– Thank you Free! 0. $
– I paid;
4. I included this request to my attached the 2 pieces below dessou;
A. Dictionary definition of the word planet
B. Dictionary definition of the word earth
5. My present application is well founded in fact and law;
6. For this reason: the Court should welcome to my present application; Thank you!
7. Order by the Tribunal welcomes this request and give permission to the applicant art. 885 CPCQ to be the owner, possession and administration (only) of the planet earth, then the valid laws of the land apply to the management especially the art. 1 and 947 CCQ whereas the current owner requesting its a Quebec Canada; cepandant used for the floor, the bottom and the subsoil of the planet (earth) to do a / project (s) the various takes another request made by owner permission of the court art. 885 CPCQ to have a judgment which has the effect of respected place acquired rights of humans who lived there at the same temperature it is possible to have a / respondents will have the right to speak for or against?; the project;
8. Thank you all free!
St. Euphemia the January 9, 2012
 File 200-05-019492-128.
 folder 200-05-019491-120.
 Paragraph 3b of the document “Amendment to my request” to file 200-05-019491-120.
 Paragraph 2 of the application, the file 200-05-019491-120 (full transcript).
 Parts A and B produced 200-05-019491-120 file.
 According to the definition of planet, appended to the application on file 200-05-019492-128.
 Note 3 (full transcript).
 Paragraph 2 of the application, the file 200-05-019492-128 (full transcript).
 Section 3 B of the application, the file 200-05-019492-128 (full transcript).
 Judgment was delivered on 19 December 2011 by Judge Stephen Parent, dismissing the plaintiff to file 200-05-019484-117.
 This brother would bare owner of a farm of which the applicant is a director.
 Decision of 29 January 2008 Judge Jacques Babin, folder 300-17-000025-070.
 Decision of 11 September 2009 by Judge Dominique Bélanger, folder 300-17-000042-083.
 Paragraph 1 of the judgment of 19 December 2011, on file 200-05-019484-117.
 The applicant’s complaints are taken most often by the name of Martin or the Sylvio, but also by Martin Sylvio, Sylvio Martin, Martin (Sylvio) or Sylvio (Martin).
 Yves-Marie Morissette, “Abuse of rights, querulous and unrepresented party”,  49 McGill LJ p. 23, para. 8.
 Ibid, para. 9.
 v. Barreau du Québec. Srougi, 2007 QCCS 685 (CanLII), 2007 QCCS 685, para. 24, the passage is Charles Meunier, The querulous: The Haunting of our courts, Reporters Associés, p. 2, quoting Dr. Gilbert Pinard.
 R.R.Q., 1981, c. C-25, r. 8.
 Id by. 15.
 Art. 46 and 47 C.p.c.
 See in particular the reasons set out in paragraphs 10-29 of the decision (note 12).
 See in particular the reasons set out in paragraphs 13-30 of the decision (note 13).