Québec (Curateur public) v. Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St-Ferdinand et autres, (1996) 202 N.R. 321 (SCC)

• Judge: Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 03, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 202 N.R. 321 (SCC);DTE 96T-1257;EYB 1996-29281;[1996] 3 SCR 211;1996 CanLII 172 (SCC);138 DLR (4th) 577;202 NR 321;AZ-96111110;JE 96-2256;[1996] SCJ No 90 (QL);[1996] ACS no 90

Qué. v. Syndicat nat. des employés (1996), 202 N.R. 321 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Le Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St-Ferdinand (C.S.N.) et Fédération des affaires sociales (C.S.N.) et la Confédération des syndicats nationaux (C.S.N.) (appelants) c. Le Curateur public, Me Rémi Lussier, et le Curateur public, en la personne de Dame Nicole Fontaine, ès qualités de curateur d'office à Honorine Abel (intimés) et Le Procureur général du Québec (mis en cause)

(24511)

Indexed As: Québec (Curateur public) v. Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St-Ferdinand et autres

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin,

Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

October 3, 1996.

Summary:

The St-Ferdinand hospital provided care to patients whose average chronological age was 44 but whose average mental age was two and a half. A union, the Syndicat natio­nal des employés de l'Hôpital St-Ferdinand, represented a large majority of the hospital's workers. The union launched an illegal strike that greatly disrupted the hospital's activities between October 10, 1984 and November 15, 1984. The Quebec Public Curator, acting as of right in the name of a representative of all the patients, brought a class action for damages against the union, the Fédération des affaires sociales and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux.

The Quebec Superior Court, in a judgment reported [1990] R.J.Q. 359, held that the patients suffered discomfort. The court awarded compensatory damages and ordered collective recovery. The court ordered that 40 patients in the transit and medical-surgi­cal units be excluded from the group. The court refused to award exemplary damages for unlawful and intentional interference with the rights to personal security and dignity guaranteed by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (Que.). The defendants appealed. The Public Curator filed an inci­dental appeal.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported [1994] R.J.Q. 2761; 66 Q.A.C. 1, rejected the main appeal, allowed the incidental appeal in part and ordered the defendants to pay $200,000 in exemplary damages for unlawful and intentional inter­ference with the rights to personal invio­lability and dignity guaranteed by the Char­ter. The defendants appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 7124

Federal or provincial legislation - Particu­lar rights - Integrity and inviolability of the person - A hospital workers' union launched an illegal strike that seriously disrupted the hospital's activities and in­convenienced its severely mentally handi­capped patients - The evidence did not establish that the patients suffered any permanent prejudice giving rise to psycho­logical or medical sequelae - Rather, the trial judge concluded that there had been prejudice in the nature of temporary dis­comfort, which he characterized as "minor psychological distress" - The Supreme Court of Canada, per L'Heureux-Dubé, J., held: "I find it difficult in the circum­stances to see anything in the trial judge's characterization of the prejudice, ... that amounts with interference with the right to personal inviolability guaranteed by s. 1" of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms - See paragraphs 95 to 98.

Civil Rights - Topic 7128

Federal or provincial legislation - Particu­lar rights - Personal dignity - A hospital workers' union launched an illegal strike that seriously disrupted the hospital's acti­vities and inconvenienced its severely mentally handicapped patients - The evi­dence did not establish that the patients suffered any permanent prejudice giving rise to psychological or medical sequelae - Rather, the trial judge concluded that there had been prejudice in the nature of tem­porary discomfort, which he characterized as "minor psychological distress" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that there was interference with the patients' right to personal dignity guaranteed by s. 4 of Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms - The court stated that there need not be permanent consequences to find interference with the right to personal dignity - See paragraphs 99 to 110.

Civil Rights - Topic 7185

Federal or provincial legislation - Rem­edies - Damages - [See Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2146 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 2024

Exemplary or punitive damages - Inten­tional violation of human rights - [See Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2146 ].

Practice - Topic 8800

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding findings of fact by a trial judge - [See Quebec Procedure - Topic 7952 ].

Practice - Topic 8802

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding damage awards by a trial judge - [See Quebec Responsi­bility - Topic 2107 ].

Quebec Procedure - Topic 7952

Appeal - General - Duty of appellate court re findings of fact by trial judge - A hospital workers' union launched an illegal strike that seriously disrupted the hospital's activities and inconvenienced its severely mentally handicapped patients - The Que­bec Public Curator brought a class action against the union - The action was allowed - The Supreme Court of Canada held: "... the [Quebec] Court of Appeal did not err in affirming the judgment of first instance in which, after a meticulous ex­amination of the whole of the evidence, ... the trial judge concluded that the elements of civil liability (fault, prejudice and causal connection) had been established on the balance of probabilities and that the patients of the Hospital had suffered the prejudice of discomfort because of the illegal strikes." - See paragraphs 44 to 53.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 9005

Class action - General - Evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada, per L'Heureux-Dubé, J., held that "the implementation of the class action scheme set out in Book Nine of the Code of Civil Procedure has not, in my view, changed anything in the traditional rules of evidence that apply to civil matters in Quebec ..." and that "The majority in the [Quebec] Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that proof by sufficiently serious, precise and concordant presumptions of fact applied to class actions in the same manner as it applies to any other civil matter, and that the infer­ences drawn therefrom by the trial judge were not vitiated by any error of law or fact." - See paragraphs 31 to 42, 53.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2107

Damages - General principles - Duty of appeal court re assessment by trial judge - A hospital workers' union launched an illegal strike that seriously disrupted the hospital's activities and inconvenienced its severely mentally handicapped patients - The Quebec Public Curator brought a class action against the union - The trial judge allowed the action and awarded $1,750 each to 650 patients in compensatory damages for the moral prejudice of dis­comfort - The union appealed arguing that the award was "patently excessive" - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the award because the moral damages awarded by the trial judge resulted from a meticu­lous error-free examination of the evi­dence - The court added that the Quebec Court of Appeal "rightly declined" to vary the trial judgment respecting this head of damages - See paragraphs 83 to 88.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2146

Damages - Wrongs giving rise to com­pensation - Discomfort - A hospital wor­kers' union launched an illegal strike that seriously disrupted the hospital's activities and inconvenienced its severely mentally handicapped patients - The Quebec Public Curator brought a class action against the union - The trial judge allowed the action and awarded $1,750 each to 650 patients in compensatory damages for the moral prejudice of discomfort - The Quebec Court of Appeal affirmed this award given under the general rules of civil responsi­bility but also awarded $200,000 exem­plary damages for unlawful and intentional interference with the rights of personal inviolability and personal dignity guaran­teed by Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the Court of Appeal's de­cision but held that only the right to per­sonal dignity was violated - See para­graphs 83 to 135.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2745

Damages - Moral damages - Offense to dignity - Awards - General - [See Que­bec Responsibility - Topic 2146 ].

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2811

Damages - Moral damages - Assessment of - General - The Supreme Court of Canada held that in Quebec civil law the conceptual, personal and functional ap­proaches to calculating damages for moral prejudice "apply jointly, and thereby en­courage a personalized evaluation of the moral prejudice. In fact, this appears to me to be the best solution in a field in which exact quantification of the prejudice suf­fered is extremely difficult because of the qualitative nature of that prejudice. Conse­quently, I am of the opinion that the func­tional approach, as defined in the trilogy and in Lindal v. Lindal, ... is ap­pro­priate in Quebec civil law, not for the purpose of de­ter­mining the right to com­pensation for moral damage, but rather with respect to cal­culating the amount of moral damages." - See paragraphs 54 to 82.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2812

Damages - Moral damages - Assessment of - Capacity of plaintiff - A hospital workers' union launched an illegal strike that seriously disrupted the hospital's ac­tivities and inconvenienced its severely mentally handicapped patients - The Que­bec Public Curator brought a class action against the union - The trial judge allowed the action and awarded $1,750 each to 650 patients in compensatory damages for the moral prejudice of discomfort - The union appealed arguing that the patients could not receive compensation in the amount awarded since they were unable, because of their mental condition, to take any satisfaction therefrom - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of the appeal holding that the Quebec Court of Appeal "was correct to reject the appel­lants' argument ..." - See paragraphs 54 to 82.

Quebec Responsibility - Topic 3415

Damages - Punitive or exemplary damages - Entitlement - Unlawful and intentional interference with Charter rights (Que.) - [See Quebec Responsibility - Topic 2146 ].

Cases Noticed:

Rubis v. Gray Rocks Inn Ltd., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 452; 41 N.R. 108, refd to. [para. 28].

Montreal Tramways Co. v. Léveillé, [1933] S.C.R. 456, refd to. [para. 38].

Longpré v. Thériault, [1979] C.A. 258 (Que.), refd to. [para. 38].

Commission des droits de la personne du Québec v. Montréal (Communauté ur­baine), [1978] R.J.Q. 2024 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Garantie, compagnie d'assurance de l'Amérique du Nord v. Massicotte et P.C.O. Service (Québec) Ltd., [1988] R.R.A. 16; 21 Q.A.C. 85 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Concorde, Cie d'assurances générales v. Doyon, [1989] R.R.A. 52 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Stein Estate v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 46].

Dorval v. Bouvier, [1968] S.C.R. 288, refd to. [para. 46].

Beaudoin-Daigneault v. Richard, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 2; 51 N.R. 288, refd to. [para. 46].

Lensen v. Lensen, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 672; 79 N.R. 334; 64 Sask.R. 6; [1988] 1 W.W.R. 481; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 46].

Laurentide Motels Ltd. et al. v. Beauport (Ville) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705; 94 N.R. 1; 23 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 46].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Bear Island Foundation, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 570; 127 N.R. 147; 46 O.A.C. 396, refd to. [para. 46].

Lapointe v. Chevrette, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 351; 133 N.R. 116; 45 Q.A.C. 262, refd to. [para. 46].

Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur - see Lapointe v. Chevrette.

Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377; 171 N.R. 245; 49 B.C.A.C. 1; 80 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 46].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 254; 193 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 46].

Schwartz v. Canada - see Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz.

Fraternité des Policiers de Montréal Inc. v. Montréal (City) and Beaulieu, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 740; 32 N.R. 383, refd to. [para. 51].

Royal Victoria Hospital v. Morrow, [1974] S.C.R. 501, refd to. [para. 51].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 577; 3 C.C.L.T. 225, consd. [para. 57].

Teno et al. v. Arnold et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287; 19 N.R. 1; 3 C.C.L.T. 372; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 609, refd to. [para. 57].

Thornton et al. v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267; 19 N.R. 552; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 480; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 607; 3 C.C.L.T. 257, refd to. [para. 57].

Lindal v. Lindal, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 629; 39 N.R. 361, consd. [para. 57].

Snyder v. Montreal Gazette Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 494; 82 N.R. 371; 12 Q.A.C. 83, refd to. [para. 65].

Giguère v. Grégoire, [1973] C.S. 119 (Que.), refd to. [para. 68].

Russell (Jim) International Racing Drivers School Ltd. et al. v. Hite et al., [1986] R.J.Q. 1610; 1 Q.A.C. 174 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Chaput v. Romain, [1955] S.C.R. 834; 1 D.L.R.(2d) 241, consd. [para. 69].

St-Jacques v. Fédération des employées et employés de services public Inc. (C.S.N.) et al., [1996] 2 S.C.R. 345; 198 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 69].

Driver v. Coca-Cola Ltd., [1961] S.C.R. 201, consd. [para. 70].

Dugal v. Québec (Procureur général), [1979] C.S. 617 (Que.), affd. in part J.E. 82-1169 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Bouliane v. Drouin et Commission scolaire de Charlesbourg, [1984] C.S. 323, affd. [1987] R.J.Q. 1490; 7 Q.A.C. 177 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Canuel v. Sauvageau, [1991] R.R.A. 18 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Gingras v. Robin, J.E. 84-765 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 76].

Bolduc v. Lessard, [1989] R.R.A. 350 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 76].

Drolet v. Parenteau, [1991] R.J.Q. 2956 (S.C.), affd. [1994] R.J.Q. 689; 61 Q.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

Cortese v. Sept-Iles Hélicoptères Services Ltée, [1983] R.L. 46 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

Perron v. Société des établissements de plein air du Québec, J.E. 90-721 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

Marchand v. Champagne, J.E. 92-429 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

Institut Philippe-Pinel de Montréal v. Dion, [1983] C.S. 438 (Que.), refd to. [para. 93].

Jobin v. Ambulance Ste-Catherine J.-C. Inc., [1992] R.J.Q. 56 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 93].

Proulx v. Viens, [1994] R.J.Q. 1130 (C.Q.), refd to. [para. 93].

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. 93].

Commission des droits de la personne du Québec v. Lemay, [1995] R.J.Q. 1967 (H.R.T.), consd. [para. 93].

Viau v. Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, [1991] R.R.A. 740 (S.C.), consd. [para. 96].

Dubois v. Société St-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, [1983] C.A. 247 (Que.), refd to. [para. 99].

Blanchet v. Corneau, [1985] C.S. 299 (Que.), refd to. [para. 99].

Scotia McLeod Inc. v. Champagne, [1989] R.J.Q. 1845 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 99].

Desrosiers v. Groupe Québécois Inc., [1994] R.R.A. 111 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 103].

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. 103].

Commission des droits de la personne v. Coutu, [1995] R.J.Q. 1628 (H.R.T.), refd to. [para. 107].

Nantel et autres c. West Island Teachers' Association et autres, [1988] R.J.Q. 1569; 16 Q.A.C. 32 (C.A.), consd. [para. 112].

Augustus v. Gosset, [1995] R.J.Q. 335; 68 Q.A.C. 127 (C.A.), consd. [para. 114].

Vorvis v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085; 94 N.R. 321; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 193; [1989] 4 W.W.R. 218; 36 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 90 C.L.L.C. 14,035; 25 C.C.E.L. 81, refd to. [para. 119].

BMW of North America Inc. v. Gore (1996), 64 U.S.L.W. 4335, refd to. [para. 119].

Samuelli v. Jouhannet, [1994] R.J.Q. 152 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 126].

Roy v. Patenaude, [1994] R.J.Q. 2503 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

Sutherland v. Papadatos, [1987] R.J.Q. 1020; 7 Q.A.C. 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 128].

Statutes Noticed:

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-12, preamble [para. 100]; sect. 1, sect. 4, sect. 49 [para. 4].

Civil Code of Lower Canada, art. 1203 [para. 31]; art. 1204 [para. 50]; art. 1205, art. 1238, art. 1241 [para. 3].

Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1457 [para. 64]; art. 1621 [para. 126]; art. 2803 [para. 31]; art. 2846, art. 2849 [para. 38]; art. 2860 [para. 50].

Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. 1977, c. C-25, art. 1022 [para. 9]; art. 1031, art. 1045 [para. 3].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, La responsabilité civile, 4 e éd., 1994, pp. 153, 154 [para. 118]; 190, 191 [paras. 59, 68].

Beaumier, Manon, Le recours collectif au Québec et aux États-Unis, 1987, 18 R.G.D. 775, p. 781 [para. 32].

Brière de l'Isle, Georges, La faute dolosive -- tentative de classification, D. 1980, Chron. 133, generally [para. 118].

Chartier, Yves, La réparation du préjudice dans la responsabilité civile, 1983, p. 683 [para. 74].

Ducharme, Léo, Précis de la preuve, 4 e éd., 1993, pp. 173 [para. 37]; 200 [para. 47].

Ferland, Denis, and Emery, Benoît, Précis de procédure civile du Québec, 2 e éd., 1994, vol. 2, p. 644 [para. 32].

Gardner, Daniel, L'évaluation du préjudice corporel, 1994, pp. 162 [para. 60]; 173 [para. 79].

Josserand, Louis, Cours de droit civil français, 3 e éd., 1939, t. II, p. 262 [para. 66].

Jutras, Daniel, Pretium et précision (1990), 69 Can. Bar Rev. 203, pp. 216, 217 [para. 67].

Le Roy, Max, L'évaluation du préjudice corporel, 12 e éd., 1993, p. 67 [para. 74].

Mazeaud, Henri, Mazeaud, Léon and Ma­zeaud, Jean, Leçons de droit civil, 6 e éd., 1978, t. 2, p. 396 [para. 66].

Ogus, A.I., Damages for Lost Amenities: for a Foot, a Feeling or a Function? (1972), 35 Modern Law Rev. 1, gen­erally [para. 72].

Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on Exemplary Damages (1991), generally [para. 119].

Perret, Louis, De l'impact de la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne sur le droit civil des contrats et de la responsa­bilité du Québec, 1981, 12 R.G.D. 121, pp. 138, 139 [para. 118].

Planiol, Marcel, and Ripert, Georges, Traité pratique de droit civil français, 2 e éd., 1952, t. 6, p. 754 [para. 66].

Robert 1, Le Petit (1989), pp. 541 "di­gnité" [para. 101]; 1016 "intégrité" [para. 96].

Roy, Pauline, La difficile intégration du concept de dommages exemplaires en droit québécois, in Responsabilité civile et les dommages - En constante évolu­tion (1990), pp. 29 to 31 [para. 109].

Roy, Pauline, Les dommages exemplaires en droit québécois: instrument de revalorisation de la responsabilité civile (1995), t. 1, pp. 231, 232 [para. 122]; t. 2, pp. 350 to 358 [para. 116]; 388 to 408 [para. 111].

Royer, Jean-Claude, La preuve civile, 2 e éd., 1995, pp. 514 [para. 33]; 515 [para. 35].

Starck, Boris, Droit civil: obligation, 3 e éd., 1988, t. 1, p. 69 [para. 66].

Viney, Geneviève, L'indemnisation des victimes d'accidents de la circulation, 1992, pp. 120, 121 [para. 74].

Waddams, S.M., The Law of Damages (Rev. 2nd Ed. 1991)(Looseleaf Ed.), p. 11.10 et seq. [para. 119].

Wéry, André, L'évaluation judiciaire des dommages non-pécuniaires résultant de blessures corporelles: du pragmatisme de l'arbitraire?, [1986] R.R.A. 355, p. 357 [para. 75].

Counsel:

Clément Groleau and Thierry Bériault, for the appellants;

Denis Sauvé and Pierre Deschamps, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Groleau & Associés, Montreal, Quebec, for the appellants;

Sauvé, Guillot, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on May 2, 1996, by Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, 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.