Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Insurance s — Automobile insurance s — Interpretation of concept of “damage caused by an automobile” s — Government insurance scheme in principle excluding remedies under general law to compensate for bodily injury caused by automobile s — Action in extracontractual liability brought against owner of tree that collapsed on automobile with victim inside and killed victim s — Whether remedy under general law permitted s — Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.Q., c. A 25, s. 1.

On August 1, 2006, a tree collapsed on an automobile and killed Gabriel Anthony Rossy, who was in the automobile. The respondents, his parents and three brothers, then brought an action in extracontractual liability against the applicant City of Westmount. They alleged that the City had failed to maintain the tree, which it owned, and that it was liable on that basis. At the preliminary stage, the City moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the damage had been caused by an automobile and that compensation was therefore governed by the Automobile Insurance Act. The respondent Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec was impleaded.

The Superior Court allowed the City’s motion and dismissed the Rossy family’s action. Relying on Les Productions Pram inc. v. Lemay, [1992] R.J.Q. 1738 (C.A.), Reimnitz J. concluded that, since the Automobile Insurance Act should be given a large and liberal interpretation based on its social and compensatory nature, the accident was covered by the Act because it had resulted in “damage caused by an automobile” within the meaning of s. 1 of the Act. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the decision. It noted that, on the face of the pleadings, it was established that the tree’s collapse was the sole cause of death and that there was nothing to connect the death with the fact that Mr. Rossy had been in an automobile. According to the Court, the automobile [TRANSLATION] “was merely where [Mr. Rossy] was sitting when the tree collapsed” (para. 40). In short, the automobile [TRANSLATION] “was not a factor in the accident or the damage resulting therefrom” (para. 42), which meant that the government compensation scheme did not apply in the circumstances.