Augustus v. Gosset, (1996) 202 N.R. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Cory and McLachlin, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 03, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 202 N.R. 241 (SCC);1996 CanLII 173 (SCC);202 NR 241;[1996] RRA 915;[1996] CarswellQue 915;138 DLR (4th) 617;JE 96-1925;AZ-96111103;[1996] SCJ No 92 (QL);[1996] 3 SCR 268;34 CCLT (2d) 111

Augustus v. Gosset (1996), 202 N.R. 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Gloria Augustus (appelante) c. Communauté urbaine de Montréal et Allan Gosset et Orberth Griffin (intimées)

(24607)

Indexed As: Augustus v. Gosset

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier,

Cory and McLachlin, JJ.

October 3, 1996.

Summary:

Policeman Allan Gosset of the Commu­nauté urbaine de Montréal unlawfully shot and killed Anthony Griffin, aged 19. Grif­fin's mother sued Gosset and the Commu­nauté urbaine de Montréal for damages resulting from her son's death. She sought compensatory damages for solatium doloris, for interference with her "right of parent­hood" under ss. 1, 39 and 49 of Quebec's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, as her son's heir, for his loss of life or of life ex­pectancy under ss. 1 and 49 of the Charter. The mother also sought exemplary damages for intentional violation of her son's rights under the Charter. Anthony's father inter­vened.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a judgment reported [1990] R.J.Q. 2641, allowed the action and awarded $4,000 to each of the parents as exemplary damages and $10,795 and $3,795 respectively to the mother and father as compensatory damages ($9,000 and $2,000 respectively) and for funeral costs ($1,795 each). The trial judge dismissed the mother's claim for solatium doloris on the basis that this head of damage was not compensable but awarded her the $9,000 for loss of moral and financial support. The parents and the policeman appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, Fish, J.A., dissenting in part, in a judgment reported [1995] R.J.Q. 335; 68 Q.A.C. 127; 27 C.C.L.T.(2d) 161, allowed the mother's appeal in part, dismissed the father's appeal and allowed the policeman's appeal. The court ordered Gosset and the Communauté urbaine de Montréal to pay $16,795 in com­pensatory damages to the mother and dis­missed the claim for exemplary damages. The court held that the trial judge erred in holding that solatium doloris was not compensable. The Court of Appeal's award included $15,000 for solatium doloris because the $9,000 awarded below for loss of moral and financial support was insuffi­cient. The court however, refused both to recognize the interference with the mother's "right of parenthood" and to award her compensation as her son's heir for his loss of life expectancy and interference with his right to life and security. The mother appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part only to hold that solatium doloris was compensable and refer the parties back to the Court of Appeal for a hearing on quantum.

Civil Rights - Topic 7123

Federal or provincial legislation - Particu­lar rights - Right of parenthood - Augustus sued for damages resulting from the death of her son, who was shot by a policeman - Her claim included compen­satory damages for illicit deprivation of a right of parenthood under the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Augustus alleged that she had a right to have a relationship with her son within the family unit and was entitled to damages for interference with that right - Her motion was dismissed - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed this decision and held: "It is clear that neither the Canadian nor the Quebec Charter protects the right to maintain and continue a par­ent-child relationship." - See paragraphs 52 and 53.

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal or provincial legislation - Rem­edies - Damages - Compensatory dam­ages - [See Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2793 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal or provincial legislation - Rem­edies - Damages - Exemplary or punitive damages - Policeman Gosset unlawfully shot and killed Anthony Griffin, aged 19 - Anthony's mother sued for exemplary damages under s. 49 of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms for "un­lawful and intentional interference" with Anthony's right to life under s. 1 - The Supreme Court of Canada stated first that nothing prevented a claim for exemplary damages in an action for moral or material prejudice to the mother as an indirect victim of the unlawful interference with her son's right to life - The court then affirmed the dismissal of the claim because Gosset did not intend to kill Anthony and did not intend the consequences of his act - See paragraphs 74 to 81.

Damage Awards - Topic 97.1

Injury and death - Fatal accidents - Grief - [See Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2794 ].

Damages - Topic 1313

Exemplary or punitive damages - Wrong­ful death - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 7185 ].

Damages - Topic 1570

General damages - Wrongful death - General - [See Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2793 ].

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2792

Damages - Moral damages - Death - Life expectancy, shortening of - [See Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2793 ].

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2793

Damages - Moral damages - Death - Infringement of rights to life and personal security - Policeman Gosset unlawfully shot and killed Anthony Griffin, aged 19 - Anthony's mother and heir sued as suc­cessor to Anthony's rights for compensa­tory damages for infringement of Antho­ny's right to life and to life expectancy under s. 1 of the Quebec Charter - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of the claim because loss of life or of life expectancy was not a prejudice for which compensatory damages were available - The right to life terminated at the time of death and did not include the right not to die through the fault of another - Loss of life or life expectancy, as opposed to moral prejudice, for example, was not transmissible to a victim's heirs - See paragraphs 54 to 73.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2794

Damages - Moral damages - Death - Solatium doloris - Policeman Gosset unlawfully shot and killed Anthony Grif­fin, aged 19 - Anthony's mother (he was her only surviving son) sued for compen­satory damages for solatium doloris - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the availability of damages for solatium dol­oris in Quebec law (see paragraphs 24 to 48) and the determination of quantum (see paragraphs 49 to 51) - The court held that solatium doloris was a compensable head of damage in Quebec law and referred the parties here to the Quebec Court of Appeal for a hearing on quantum - See paragraphs 24 to 54.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 3415

Damages - Punitive or exemplary damages - Entitlement - Intentional violation of Charter rights (Que.) - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 7185 ].

Cases Noticed:

Québec (Curateur public) v. Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St-Ferdinand et autres (1996), 202 N.R. 321 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 1].

R. v. Gosset, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 76; 157 N.R. 195; 57 Q.A.C. 130, refd to. [para. 3].

Chaput v. Romain, [1955] S.C.R. 834; 1 D.L.R.(2d) 241, consd. [para. 27].

Canadian Pacific Railway v. Robinson (1887), 14 S.C.R. 105, refd to. [para. 29].

Robinson v. Canadian Pacific Railway, [1892] A.C. 481 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Miller v. Grand Trunk Railway, [1906] A.C. 187 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

Montreal West (Town) v. Hough, [1931] S.C.R. 113, refd to. [para. 30].

Driver v. Coca Cola Ltd., [1961] S.C.R. 201, refd to. [para. 30].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Lachance (1909), 42 S.C.R. 205, refd to. [para. 30].

Montreal Tramways Co. v. Lindner, [1939] S.C.R. 405, refd to. [para. 30].

Ravary v. Grand Trunk Railway (1860), 6 L.C.J. 49 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Provost v. Jackson (1869), 13 L.C.J. 170 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Vanasse v. Montréal (Cité) (1888), 16 R.L. 386 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Cadoret v. Montréal (Cité) (1888), 16 R.L. 397 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Desrosiers v. Canada (1920), 60 S.C.R. 105, refd to. [para. 32].

Pantel v. Air Canada, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 472; 2 N.R. 7, refd to. [para. 32].

Rubis v. Gray Rocks Inn Ltd., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 452; 41 N.R. 108, refd to. [para. 32].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182, refd to. [para. 35].

Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 351; 133 N.R. 153; 45 Q.A.C. 262, refd to. [para. 35].

Snyder v. Montreal Gazette Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 494; 82 N.R. 371, refd to. [para. 40].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

Botiuk v. Toronto Free Press Publications - see Botiuk v. Bardyn et al.

Botiuk v. Bardyn et al., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 3; 186 N.R. 1; 85 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 44].

Lindal v. Lindal, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 629; 39 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 44].

Macartney v. Islic (1996), 34 C.C.L.I.(2d) 119 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 45].

Wilson et al. v. Martinello et al. (1993), 47 A.C.W.S.(3d) 69 (Ont. Gen. Div.), affd. (1995), 81 O.A.C. 24; 23 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Guimond v. Guimond Estate (1995), 160 N.B.R.(2d) 278; 412 A.P.R. 278 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 45].

Lian et al. v. Money Estate et al. (1994), 93 B.C.L.R.(2d) 16 (S.C.), affd. (1996), 69 B.C.A.C. 176; 113 W.A.C. 176; 15 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Thornton v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267; 19 N.R. 552, refd to. [para. 48].

Teno et al. v. Arnold et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287; 19 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 48].

Nightingale v. Mazerall and Elliott (1991), 121 N.B.R.(2d) 319; 304 A.P.R. 319 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 53].

R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metro­politan Toronto - see Sheena B., Re.

Driver v. Coca Cola Ltd., [1960] B.R. 313 (Que.), refd to. [para. 56].

St-Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de services publics Inc. (C.S.N.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345; 198 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 58].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 64].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 64].

Statutes Noticed:

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, sect. 1 [para. 10]; sect. 39 [para. 9]; sect. 49 [para. 10].

Civil Code of Lower Canada, art. 1053, art. 1056 [para. 8].

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 3 [para. 61]; art. 1457 [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

André, Robert, La réparation du préjudice corporel (1986), pp. 370 to 371 [para. 34].

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, La responsabilité civile, 4 e éd., 1994, pp. 202 [para. 27]; 202 to 203 [para. 31]; 203 [para. 40].

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, Le Code civil québécois: crise de connaissance ou crise de vieillesse (1966), 44 Can. Bar Rev. 391, generally [para. 33].

Baudouin, Louis, Le droit civil de la pro­vince de Québec (1953), pp. 836 to 838 [para. 33].

Baudouin, Louis, Le Solatium Doloris (1955), 2 C. de D. 55, generally [para. 33].

Caron, Madeleine, Le Code civil québé­cois, instrument de protection des droits et libertés de la personne? (1978) 56 Can. Bar Rev. 197, generally [para. 59].

Dupichot, Jacques, Des préjudices réfléchis nés de l'atteinte à la vie ou à l'intégrité corporelle (1969), pp. 215 to 216 [para. 27].

Frenette, Orville, L'incidence du décès de la victime d'un délit ou d'un quasi-délit sur l'action en indemnité, 1961, pp. 22 to 23 [para. 33].

Gardner, Daniel, L'évaluation du préjudice corporel, 1994, pp. 314 to 315 [para. 40].

Luntz, Harold, Assessment of Damages (3rd Ed. 1990), p. 437 [para. 34].

Mayrand, Albert, Les chefs d'indemnité en cas d'accident mortel (1968), 9 C. de D. 639, pp. 663 to 664 [para. 31].

McClurg, Andrew Jay, It's a Wonderful Life: The Case for Hedonic Damages in Wrongful Death Cases (1990), 66 Notre Dame L. Rev. 57, pp. 96 to 97 [para. 66].

Nantel, Maréchal, Le recours des parents en vertu de l'article 1056 C.c. est-il de droit anglais? (1930), 8 R. du D. 469, generally [para. 33].

Poirier, Jean Sébastien, Autopsie d'une disposition disparue: l'article 1056 du Code civil du Bas-Canada et le solatium doloris (1995), 29 R.J.T. 657, generally [para. 31].

VanHorne, Robert D., Wrongful Death Recovery: Quagmire of the Common Law (1985-86), 34 Drake L. Rev. 987, p. 997 [para. 34].

Viney, Geneviève, Responsabilité civile, J.C.P. 1993, éd. G, I, 3853, p. 271 [para. 66].

Viney, Geneviève, Traité de droit civil, t. 4, Les obligations: la responsabilité -- conditions (1982), pp. 327 to 332 [para. 27].

Viney, Geneviève, Traité de droit civil, t. 5, Les obligations: la responsabilité -- effets (1988), pp. 230 to 231 [paras. 66, 69].

Waddams, S.M., The Law of Damages (2nd Ed. 1991)(Looseleaf), p. 6-1 [para. 27].

Walker, David M., Principles of Scottish Private Law (4th Ed. 1988), vol. 2, p. 618 [para. 34].

Wasserman, Gertrude, Solatium Doloris as an element in the awarding of damages arising from delict and quasi-delict (1953), 13 R. du B. 127, generally [para. 33].

Counsel:

James Murphy, Patrice Deslauriers and Reevin Pearl, for the appellant Augustus;

François Poliquin and Pierre-Yves Bois­vert, for the respondent Communauté urbaine de Montréal;

Mario Létourneau and Janine Kean, for the respondent Allan Gosset.

Solicitors of Record:

Pearl & Associés, Montréal, Québec, for the appellant;

Leduc, Bélanger, Boisvert, Laurendeau, Rivard, Montréal, Québec, for the re­spondent Communauté urbaine de Mont­réal;

Alarie, Legault, Beauchemin, Paquin, Jobin & Brisson, Montréal, Québec, for the respondent Allan Gosset.

This appeal was heard on June 10, 1996, by La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages by L'Heureux-Dubé, J., on October 3, 1996.