Dispute period

In general, a victim has a legal period of 60 days to challenge any decision rendered by the SAAQ. Consequently, any action brought following that period is normally inadmissible.

This 60-day period begins to run on the date of notification of the SAAQ’s decision. Thus, it is important to note the date on which you receive your decision by mail, which represents your notification date, in order to properly establish your deadline.

A party who fails to challenge his decision within the time limit may nevertheless, exceptionally, be relieved of his default, provided that he demonstrates that his delay was justified by reasonable grounds and that he was unable to act in time.

The applicant will also have to demonstrate before the courts that he has demonstrated reasonable conduct throughout the progress of his case, and more specifically, that he has taken a sufficient interest in his case and has carried out an adequate and responsible follow-up of his file.

It is therefore understandable, on the other hand, that an applicant who has shown recklessness or negligence can only very difficultly be relieved of his failure to contest in time.

To that end, it will also be important to determine whether the applicant has read his decision in its entirety, inter alia, since it must mention his right to challenge and the time limit for exercising it. Failure to obtain information in that regard amounts to negligence on the part of the applicant.

Out of time

We find, by going through the case law, several scenarios of impossibility to act that can successfully justify a failure to have challenged his decision within the deadlines.

These scenarios include, for example, that of the victim suffering from serious and duly documented health problems , having prevented him from contesting in time.

Similarly, the scenario of the victim who has never received his decision is also often recognized in case law. However, it should be noted, in this case, that the chances of success of the appeal are based entirely on the credibility of the victim and the notes in his file.

Finally, we detect the scenario of the English-speaking applicant who maintained all his correspondence with the SAAQ in English, and who waited to receive an English version of his decision before challenging it.

Thus, it is found that, although it is quite possible to be relieved of its failure to contest within the time limits, the reasons relied on must be not only convincing but also corroborated by the appropriate evidence.

On the other hand, the case law also offers us some examples of scenarios where the applicant is generally not relieved of his default, these scenarios including, in particular, those where the applicant:

• Does not read its decision in its entirety and never takes cognizance of the dispute process or time frame;
• Forget to deal with its challenge;
• Waits for receipt of additional medical documents before contesting;
• Alleges, without supporting medical evidence, that the side effects of his medication prevented him from contesting in time;
• Or loses documents relevant to the filing of his appeal and fails to obtain copies in time.

Thus, it can be seen that these reasons generally betray a certain passivity on the part of the applicant in his own case, or even a certain negligence or recklessness on his part. It is understandable that the applicant must, on the contrary, have exercised due diligence in order to justify his delay.

It must also be understood that each case is a case in this type of case, comprising its own set of facts, evidence and actors, each with a different degree of credibility. Thus, it is entirely possible that the same ground may justify a late challenge in file X, but not in file Y.