The Superior Court authorizes a class action against the Quebec State, which would not have adequately supported the victims of criminal acts committed in Nunavik, where a tiny part of them have been compensated.
“It is neither disputed nor disputable that between 2013 and 2020, in Nunavik, the State paid compensation in an objectively infinitesimal number” of cases of crimes against the person, can we read in the decision of Judge Lukasz Granosik, returned on 1er december.
The Crime Victims Compensation Act (LIVAC) and the Crime Victims Assistance Act (LAVAC) granted a series of rights to victims and obligations towards them for the State, including the right to be accompanied, supported and informed. In principle, victims across the province can take advantage of it, but that is not what actually happens. (LIVAC and LAVAC were replaced in 2021 by the An Act to assist victims of crime and promote their recovery).
“Between 2013 and 2019, approximately 80,000 crimes against the person were reported annually in Quebec”, and approximately 7,000 victims received compensation, notes the judgment.
In Nunavik, however, “the State only paid 86 compensation for the 40,868 crimes against the person that were reported on this territory” over the same period. “However, if Nunavik had the same percentage as the rest of Quebec, we should have expected more than 3,000 compensation files. »
The plaintiff, designated as the representative of the group that could benefit from the class action, alleges that “this situation is a direct consequence of the lack of support and constitutes a fault for which the government services are responsible”.
She herself was the victim of four crimes against her person. She claims that, although she cooperated with the authorities during the investigations and trials related to these crimes, she was never informed of the existence of the compensation scheme, of which she was not made aware. only years later, in 2021, when she was considering a civil lawsuit against one of her attackers.
“It is clear that if the factual context advanced by the plaintiff were demonstrated, there may be liability,” wrote Judge Granosik in a 20-page decision.
The group, defined as any person who “has not been supported by the State and its representatives in order to benefit from the public compensation plan” provided for in the LIVAC after having been the victim of a crime against the person in Nunavik, could encompass thousands of people. Those who did not report the crimes of which they were victims to the authorities and those who were victims of crimes before 1er March 1972 – the date of the creation of the compensation scheme – are however excluded.
Finally, members can plead discrimination under the Quebec and Canadian charters of human rights since the Inuit account for approximately 90% of the population of Nunavik. The statistics on access to compensation in this territory show at first sight a difference in treatment based on prohibited grounds of discrimination, namely race and ethnicity. Nor did the Court rule out the possibility of awarding punitive damages if it is proven that the State’s inaction in this case amounts to an intentional infringement of the rights of the members of the group.
Judge Granosik rejected the arguments of the Attorney General of Quebec, who notably challenged the definition of the class and the jurisdiction of the Court in this dispute. He also argued that “any failure by the government to publicize the applicable services and rules cannot constitute a civil fault”.
“The State must respond to the obligations that it has explicitly and expressly imposed on itself,” retorted the Superior Court.
The plaintiff seeks $1,000 in moral damages per crime suffered for each member of the group, in addition to $10,000 each for the discrimination they allegedly experienced. It could be tens of millions of dollars if she wins on the merits.
Invited to react, the Quebec Ministry of Justice does not comment “out of respect for the judicial process”.
Me Thi Hong Lien Trinh and Me Marie-Hélène Hébert represents the Attorney General in this case, while Ms.e Victor Chauvelot and M.e Louis-Nicholas Coupal represent the plaintiff.