Our readers will recall that many decisions have been rendered in recent years analyzing, in very specific cases, what might constitute an automobile accident under the Automobile Insurance Act (AIA). Several decisions have been rendered by both the Supreme Court of Canada[1] and the Court of Appeal[2]. The Administrative Tribunal of Québec (TAQ) recently rendered an interesting and unusual decision on January 22, 2025 (2025 QC TAQ 01383) in the case of L.B. v Québec (Société de l’assurance automobile)[3].
D.C., husband of the claimant L.B., died under unusual circumstances. Suffering from depression, D.C. had just been evicted from the marital home and decided to drive his van after having placed a propane gas tank in the front passenger seat and two cans of gasoline in the back seat. He drove a few hundred meters, started a fire inside the vehicle, and drove away at high speed while the vehicle was in flames. His race ended in a collision with a tree. Two explosions were heard by witnesses, the first while the car was still moving and the second after impact. The coroner concluded that the driver had committed suicide, having died because of the fire in his vehicle, which he had deliberately set, through the combined effects of smoke inhalation and oxygen deprivation. Since the accident occurred while using the vehicle, the claimant (his spouse) asked the SAAQ to compensate her, in accordance with section 62 of the Act (LAA). After reviewing the definition of “prejudice”, the TAQ administrative judge concluded that the onus was on the claimant to establish by a preponderance of evidence that her spouse’s death had indeed been caused by an automobile accident. This proof had to follow the criteria set out in the Civil Code of Quebec, namely on the balance of probabilities.
In Rossy, the Supreme Court ruled:
“It is not necessary that the damage be directly caused by the vehicle itself. It is sufficient that it occurred in the general context of the use of the automobile.”
The decision lists four cases in which similar situations were deemed to fall outside the scope of the LAA.
Applying the principles to the case at hand, the administrative judge ruled that, firstly, it is indisputable that the collision of a car with a tree, resulting in an explosion, constitutes a motor vehicle accident, and that, in all probability, injuries resulted. The more specific question, however, was whether the driver had already died prior to the collision. The pathologist’s report, which had noted the extensive charring of the body, had also noted the absence of traumatic injuries (except those caused by the fire).
Thus, the preponderant evidence was that the cause of death was the fire and not the injuries caused by the collision with the tree. The TAQ distinguished this situation from Godbout v. Pagé, where the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that “the injury results from a series of events that are plausibly, logically and sufficiently closely linked, and whose starting point in both cases is the automobile accident”. In this case, however, according to the evidence, the injury had occurred before the collision, which had led the SAAQ to conclude that there was no link between the use of the van and the death, as the van was merely the location where the event occurred.
Consequently, the TAQ concluded that, despite all the sympathy felt for the claimant, she was not entitled to compensation from the SAAQ for the death of her spouse.
This decision is one in a long line of rulings that have analyzed specific cases to determine whether the LAA applies in all its aspects.
[1]Godbout v. Pagé, 2017 CSC 18 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16498/index.do
[2]Productions Pram inc. c. Lemay, [1992] R.J.Q. 1738 https://canlii.ca/t/1pdn3 et Westmount (City) v. Rossy, 2012 CSC 30 https://canlii.ca/t/frshq
[3]L.B. c Québec (Société de l’assurance automobile), 2025 CanLII 8622 (QC TAQ)
