On March 24, 2017, in the
Godbout and Gargantiel
case, the country’s highest court gave a very broad interpretation to the “no-fault” rule, a system of compensation for victims of road accidents, regardless of fault. The effect of this interpretation of the Supreme Court is to extend this rule to the faults of third parties following an automobile accident.
Separate fault after the automobile accident
The question to be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada was whether an automobile accident victim who is eligible for SAAQ allowances and who has undergone a worsening of his condition due to a fault committed by a third party has the right to sue the latter in plain clothes for the damage it suffered by this fault subsequent to the accident.
Here are the facts to put into context the scope given to the “no-fault” regime under
The Quebec Automobile Insurance Act
(hereinafter the “Act”).
Mrs. Godbout wanted to sue the hospital and its staff, alleging that their fault, distinct from the accident, had brought her additional sequelae.
Mr. Gargantiel, meanwhile, wanted to sue the police department that had taken more than 40 hours to find him, which led to frostbite and amputations.
Doctors and police officers protected from civil action
In its judgment, the Supreme Court of Canada, under the pen of Justice Robert Wagner, concluded that the fault, although distinct from the accident, was in the context of an automobile accident and is therefore covered by the SAAQ. The additional damage is, by this very fact, covered by the public compensation scheme.
We cannot go beyond the no-fault regime
In doing so, the country’s highest court is promoting a broad and liberal interpretation of the Act by holding that there is “a plausible, logical and sufficiently close link” between the motor vehicle accident and the fault of the third party who followed the accident and that, therefore, the resulting injury is part of the automobile accident.
The consequences of not being able to sue third parties following an automobile accident
The consequence may be advantageous or disadvantageous depending on each separate case.
Indeed, if the third party responsible for the additional damage is not solvent, it is advantageous that it is the SAAQ that compensates, thus avoiding the multiplication of procedures. In addition, this prevents the SAAQ from refusing to pay by alleging the fault of a third party, despite the fact that it could exercise a subrogation mechanism.
On the other hand, how can we completely relieve a third party who has no connection with the accident of all the consequences of his actions? Let’s take the example to the extreme: a surgeon who forgets his scissors in a car accident victim or a doctor who prescribes a drug to which the patient is allergic. These situations would not give rise to any liability on their part.
This issue will be decided for a long time with this recent Supreme Court decision, unless Parliament decides to amend section 83.57 of the Act, which states that:
The compensation provided for in this Title shall take the place of all rights and remedies for bodily injury and no action in this regard shall be received in a court of law.
Consult our complete file on SAAQ compensation.
And follow our weekly legal capsules on different legal topics on our Facebook page!