Diane Vachon and Daniel Fortier v. Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec and Administrative Tribunal of Québec


Insurance — Automobile insurance

The applicants, Ms. Vachon and Mr. Fortier, are the parents of three children, including a daughter who died in an automobile accident in 2011. A few hours after the accident, the applicants went to the morgue to identify their daughter’s body and then went to the scene of the events, where they could see the severity of the impact and the damage. The respondent Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ) paid them $50,200 in compensation and $4,695 to cover the funeral expenses. They were also reimbursed for the cost of professional services, including those of a psychologist. In June 2014, the applicants claimed compensation again, asserting that they too were victims of their daughter’s accident as a result of their visit to the scene of the accident, because that visit haunted them and had scarred them. In July 2014, their claim for compensation was denied. Following a review, the initial decision was upheld by the SAAQ’s review directorate. The applicants then contested the review directorate’s decision before the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (ATQ). The application for review was dismissed in January 2018. The applicants applied to the Superior Court for judicial review of the ATQ’s decision.


Person C v. MediaQMI Inc., TVA Group Inc., La Presse Inc., Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

- and -

Person A, Sylvie Tremblay, in her capacity as assistant syndic of the Collège des médecins du Québec, Jacinthe Gaumond, in her capacity as detective sergeant of the Service de police de Laval


Charter of Rights — Presumption of innocence — Right to a fair hearing

The applicant, referred to as “Person C”, is a physician against whom the assistant syndic of the Collège des médecins du Québec (“CMQ”) filed a complaint with the disciplinary council concerning a patient’s death. The hearings and proceedings before the disciplinary council took place in camera. Person C was also being investigated by the police in connection with the same events. In the course of their investigation, the police sought to access the disciplinary inquiry file of the Collège, which claimed privilege over the content. The police obtained and executed a search warrant; the documents were given to the police under seal.

Prior to a hearing to decide the issue of privilege on the merits, Person C filed a sealing order to protect her identity and any information that might identify her, including the factual background. “Person A”, a witness in both the disciplinary process and the police investigation, also applied for a similar order.

The Quebec Superior Court granted Person A’s motion but dismissed Person C’s. However, Person C’s name was redacted pursuant to the order made on Person A’s motion.

Person C then sought leave to appeal the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. Person C also filed a motion with the Supreme Court for a stay of execution of the Superior Court’s judgment and for a sealing order, the Superior Court having already dismissed a similar motion to stay its own judgment.


Wesley Vander Leeuw v. Her Majesty the Queen


Criminal law — Offences — Elements of Offence

The applicant was convicted of three counts of agreeing or arranging to commit designated offences against children (s. 172.2 of the Criminal Code), and making and distributing child pornography (s. 163.1). The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.


Brad Cabana v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador, Kathy Dunderdale, Terry French


Civil procedure — Case management — Procedural fairness

Mr. Cabana commenced a claim for damages. He was self‑represented at trial. Mid‑trial, he was denied a publication ban in respect of medical evidence disclosed to opposing counsel and the trial judge required disclosure of a document referred to by Mr. Cabana’s psychologist when she was testifying at trial. Mr. Cabana applied for a variety of relief including a declaration of mistrial. The trial judge dismissed the applications. The Court of Appeal denied an appeal from those rulings.