de Montigny v. Brossard (Succession), (2010) 408 N.R. 80 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Cromwell, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 14, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2010), 408 N.R. 80 (SCC);2010 SCC 51

de Montigny v. Brossard (Succession) (2010), 408 N.R. 80 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2010] N.R. TBEd. NO.005

Marcel de Montigny, personally and in his capacity as heir and liquidator of the succession of Liliane de Montigny, and in his capacity as heir of the successions of Claudia and Béatrice Brossard, Sandra de Montigny, personally and in her capacity as heir and liquidator of the succession of Liliane de Montigny, and Karen de Montigny, personally and in her capacity as heir and liquidator of the succession of Liliane de Montigny (appellants) v. Succession of the late Martin Brossard, represented by Roger Brossard, its liquidator (respondent) and Attorney General of Quebec (intervenor)

(32860; 2010 SCC 51; 2010 CSC 51)

Indexed As: de Montigny v. Brossard (Succession)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Cromwell, JJ.

November 10, 2010.

Summary:

Martin Brossard entered the former matrimonial home, strangled his former spouse, Liliane de Montigny, drowned their two small children, Claudia and Béatrice, in the bathtub, and then hanged himself. The succession of Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice, which was made up of Liliane's father, Marcel, and her sisters, Sandra and Karen, sued the succession of Martin Brossard in damages, in the following capacities: (1) Marcel sued as liquidator of Liliane's succession, as heir and personally; and (2) Sandra and Karen, sued as heirs and personally. The plaintiffs brought a successions claim for compensatory damages for the pain, suffering and loss of expectation of life suffered by Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice. They also sought exemplary damages pursuant to s. 49(2) of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms for the unlawful and intentional interference with the right to life of Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice. Marcel, Sandra and Karen also brought a direct claim for compensatory/moral damages for solatium doloris and loss of moral support.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a decision reported [2006] R.J.Q. 1371; 40 C.C.L.T.(3d) 109; 2006 CarswellQue 2552; 2006 QCCS 1677, allowed the action in part. On the direct claim, the court awarded Marcel $30,000 for the loss of Liliane and $6,000 for the loss of each of his granddaughters. The court awarded Sandra and Karen $10,000 for the death of Liliane and $2,000 for the death of each of their nieces. The court dismissed the successions claim for compensatory damages for the pain, suffering and loss of expectation of life suffered by Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice. The court also dismissed the claim for exemplary damages on the basis that exemplary damages were accessory to compensatory damages, and no compensatory damages had been awarded. The court added that the deterrent aspect of punitive damages no longer applied in any event because Martin Brossard was deceased. The court awarded the plaintiffs one half of the funeral expenses incurred as a result of the children's deaths. The court dismissed the successions claim for funeral expenses in respect of Liliane's death. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a decision reported [2008] R.J.Q. 2015; 2008 CarswellQue 7957; 2008 QCCA 1577, allowed the appeal in part to award full compensation to the successions in respect of the funeral expenses for the deaths of Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice. The court dismissed the remainder of the appeal. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part. The court recognized the autonomous nature of the successions claim for exemplary damages pursuant to s. 49(2) of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms for the unlawful and intentional interference with the right to life of Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice. The court awarded the plaintiffs, to be shared equally, $10,000 in exemplary damages for the unlawful and intentional interference with the right to life of Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice. The objective of the punitive damages was denunciation. The court dismissed the idea that the deterrent aspect of punitive damages no longer applied because Martin Brossard killed himself right after he killed Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice.

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal, provincial or territorial legislation - Remedies - Damages - Exemplary or punitive damages - [See Quebec Responsibility - Topic 3415 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 2024

Exemplary or punitive damages - Intentional violation of human or civil rights - [See Quebec Responsibility - Topic 3415 ].

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2792

Damages - Moral damages - Death - Life expectancy - Shortening of - Martin Brossard entered the former matrimonial home, strangled his former spouse, Liliane de Montigny, drowned their two small children, Claudia and Béatrice, in the bathtub, and then hanged himself - The succession of Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice, which was made up of Liliane's father, Marcel, and her sisters, Sandra and Karen, sued the succession of Martin Brossard in damages - They brought a successions claim for compensatory damages for the pain, suffering and loss of expectation of life suffered by Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice - The trial judge dismissed the claim, absent evidence of (a) the running of a sufficient amount of time between the wrongful act and the death, and (b) real suffering by the victims - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge correctly denied the claim - See paragraphs 10, 12 and 28.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2794

Damages - Moral damages - Death - Solatium doloris - Martin Brossard entered the former matrimonial home, strangled his former spouse, Liliane de Montigny, drowned their two small children, Claudia and Béatrice, in the bathtub, and then hanged himself - The succession of Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice, which was made up of Liliane's father, Marcel, and her sisters, Sandra and Karen, sued the succession of Martin Brossard in damages - They brought a direct claim for compensatory/moral damages for solatium doloris and loss of moral support - The trial judge allowed the claim - He awarded Marcel $30,000 for the loss of Liliane and $6,000 for the loss of each of his granddaughters - The trial judge awarded Sandra and Karen $10,000 for the death of Liliane and $2,000 for the death of each of their nieces - On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the quanta awarded - They argued that the trial judge erred in failing to view psychological prejudice as a form of compensable prejudice distinct from solatium doloris and loss of moral support, even though, like them, it was included in what was referred to as "moral prejudice" - The Supreme Court of Canada, in upholding the amounts awarded, held that this argument was unfounded - The trial judge took into account all relevant factors, which included the circumstances of the deaths, the ages of the deceased and the parent, the nature and quality between the deceased and the parent, the parent's personality and ability to manage the emotional consequences of the death, and the effect of the death on the parent's life in light, inter alia, of the presence of other children or the possibility of having others - Consideration of all of these factors provided the judge with an overview of the emotional impact of the victim's death on each of the victim's loved ones so that full compensation could be provided for the resulting moral prejudice, including psychological prejudice, to the extent that this type of loss was compensable given its nature and complexity - Finally, the court held that while Quebec courts had used the $25,000 awarded by L'Heureux-Dubé, J., in Augustus v. Gosset (SCC 1996) as a reference point for determining the amount to be awarded for compensation for moral prejudice, it had never been considered as a cap in the same way as the $100,000 awarded in Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta (SCC 1978) for non-pecuniary losses suffered by the immediate victim of injury - See paragraphs 29 to 36.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2795

Damages - Moral damages - Death - Pain and suffering - [See Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2792 ].

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 3415

Damages - Punitive or exemplary damages - Entitlement - Unlawful and intentional interference with Charter rights (Que.) - Martin Brossard entered the former matrimonial home, strangled his former spouse, Liliane de Montigny, drowned their two small children, Claudia and Béatrice, in the bathtub, and then hanged himself - The succession of Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice, which was made up of Liliane's father, Marcel, and her sisters, Sandra and Karen, sued the succession of Martin Brossard in damages - They brought a successions claim for (a) compensatory damages for the pain, suffering and loss of expectation of life suffered by Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice, and (b) exemplary damages pursuant to s. 49(2) of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms for the unlawful and intentional interference with the right to life of Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice - The trial judge declined to award compensatory damages and, on the basis that exemplary damages were accessory to compensatory damages, awarded no exemplary damages - The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the ruling respecting exemplary damages - Apart from claims brought pursuant to a public compensation system such as workers' compensation, there was no reason not to recognize the autonomous nature of exemplary damages and thus give this remedy the full scope and flexibility that its incorporation into the Quebec Charter demanded - The court awarded the plaintiffs, to be shared equally, the sum of $10,000 in punitive damages for the unlawful and intentional interference with the right to life of Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice - The objective of the punitive damages was denunciation - The court dismissed the idea expounded in the lower courts that the deterrent aspect of punitive damages no longer applied because Martin Brossard killed himself right after he killed Liliane, Claudia and Béatrice - Any direct claim that the plaintiffs would have brought for exemplary damages would not have succeeded where the plaintiffs were neither direct nor indirect victims of Martin Brossard's acts - Martin Brossard did not intend to interfere with the plaintiffs' right to personal inviolability under the Charter - See paragraphs 37 to 71.

Words and Phrases

En outre - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the words "en outre" found in the French version of s. 49(2) of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12 - See paragraphs 39 to 46.

Words and Phrases

In addition - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the words "in addition" found in s. 49(2) of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12 - See paragraphs 39 to 46.

Cases Noticed:

Béliveau St-Jacques - see St. Jacques v. Fédération des employeés et employés de services public Inc. (C.S.N.) et al.

St. Jacques v. Fédération des employeés et employés de services public Inc. (C.S.N.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345; 198 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 11].

Augustus v. Gosset, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 268; 202 N.R. 241, consd. [para. 15].

Québec (Curateur public) v. Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St.-Ferdinand et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 211; 202 N.R. 321, consd. [para. 24].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 27].

H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 27].

Driver v. Coca-Cola Ltd., [1961] S.C.R. 201, refd to. [para. 28].

Pantel v. Air Canada, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 472; 2 N.R. 79, refd to. [para. 28].

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. 31].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 47].

Wilkes v. Wood (1763), 1 Lofft. 1; 98 E.R. 489 (K.B.), consd. [para. 51].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595; 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 18, consd. [para. 51].

Ward v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 28; 404 N.R. 1; 290 B.C.A.C. 222; 491 W.A.C. 222; 2010 SCC 27, consd. [para. 51].

Alvetta-Comeau et autres v. Association des professeurs de Lignery, syndicat affilié à la C.E.Q., et autres, [1990] R.J.Q. 130; 35 Q.A.C. 18 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Statutes Noticed:

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, sect. 49(2) [para. 3].

Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 625(3), art. 1610 [para. 25]; art. 1621 [para. 22].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, and Deslauriers, Patrice, La responsabilité civile (7th Ed. 2007), vol. 1, pp. 361 [para. 63]; 397 [para. 41]; 398, fn. 304, 305, 306 [para. 41]; 414 [para. 63].

Beaulne, Jacques, Droit des successions (d'après l'oeuvre de Germain Brière) (4th Ed. 2010), pp. 63, 64 [para. 63].

Dallaire, Claude, L'évolution des dommages exemplaires depuis les décisions de la Cour suprême en 1996: dix ans de cheminement, in Développements récents en droit administratif et constitutionnel (2006), vol. 240, pp. 185 [para. 38]; 210, 212 ff. [para. 41].

Gardner, Daniel, Le préjudice corporel (3rd Ed. 2009), pp. 161 [paras. 25, 41]; 161, fn. 258, 259 [para. 41]; 668 to 671 [para. 32].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on Exemplary Damages (1991), p. 32-33 [para. 54].

Pratte, Pierre, Les dommages punitifs: institution autonome et distincte de la responsabilité civile (1998), 58 R. du B. 287, p. 372 ff. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Jean-Félix Racicot, for the appellants;

No one appeared for the respondent;

Jean-Yves Bernard, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Sébastien Grammond, as amicus curiae.

Solicitors of Record :

Jean-Félix Racicot, Mont-St-Hilaire, Quebec, for the appellants;

Attorney General of Quebec, Québec, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Sébastien Grammond, Ottawa, Ontario, appointed by the Court as amicus curiae.

This appeal was heard on April 14, 2010, by McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages by LeBel, J., on November 10, 2010.