(Ottawa) A Quebecer who was refused a driver’s license after being found guilty of impaired driving will be able to request authorization to bring a class action against the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ).
Posted at 3:35 p.m.
In a decision rendered Thursday, the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal of the SAAQ which was trying to invalidate a decision of the Court of Appeal of Quebec. As usual, the highest court in the country did not specify the reasons for its decision.
The story begins in October 2016 when Richard-Nicolas Villeneuve was arrested by the police when his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit. His license is immediately suspended.
A few months later, the man submitted to a summary risk assessment, but the report of an assessor led the SAAQ to refuse him a new license and to suggest that he submit to a complete assessment of the risk of recidivism in terms of impaired driving.
The man then asks for a review of the decision. It will be rejected on the grounds that the protocol on which the assessment is based has been scientifically validated.
Dissatisfied, Mr. Villeneuve filed a challenge before the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec (TAQ) and submitted to a complete assessment of the risk of recidivism in order to obtain a new permit.
Two days later, he filed an application for authorization to institute a class action against the SAAQ seeking compensation for the consequences incurred by drivers who had been refused a driver’s license following an arrest for impaired driving with adverse risk assessments.
Mr. Villeneuve then challenged the entire evaluation process provided for by the Highway Safety Code. According to him, it is discriminatory and in particular violates the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In particular, he is claiming compensation of nearly $8,800, including $6,000 in loss of income, $2,000 in moral damages and $816.32 for the costs of the complete assessment.
The SAAQ replies that the Superior Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Villeneuve’s request, considering that this falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal of Québec. The Superior Court ruled that this was not within its jurisdiction.
In the Court of Appeal, the court considered that the trial judge should have declared that the Superior Court was the right forum since the class action was not aimed at issuing a license to Mr. Villeneuve and that he was seeking to obtain damages as compensation.
The period that would be covered by Mr. Villeneuve’s potential class action would go from 1er January 2017 until the date of authorization. Another similar case, that of Daniel Lepage, is also before the courts. It covers the period from January 27, 2011 to December 31, 2016.
The Canadian Press was unable to obtain comment from Mr. Villeneuve’s lawyers.
The SAAQ indicated “to take note” of the judgment and that “the file will follow its course”.