Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec v. Cyr

Take the test now.

Link to the original Supreme Court decision (March 28, 2008).

Case summary: SAAQ is a Provincial auto-insurance monopoly. It entered into a contract with the Centre de vérification mécanique de Montréal (CVVM) to conduct auto safety inspections. Cyr was designated in an appendix to that contract as an "accredited mechanic" who could conduct such inspections. He was not a party to the contract, though his signature appeared in the appendix indicating that he agreed to comply with the required inspection procedures. However, after several warnings the SAAQ revoked his accreditation for failure to follow the procedures properly. He and CVVM filed a case claiming that the SAAQ had not followed its obligations of "procedural fairness" under the "Act respecting administrative justice" (AAJ), which governs executive powers of organizations like SAAQ. The Superior Court held that this was a question of private contract law, not public administrative law, and the SAAQ had fulfilled its obligations under the contract. The majority of the Court of Appeal set aside that decision, saying that the contract was between SAAQ and CVVM, not Cyr, and that the existence of a contract could not excuse the SAAQ from its obligations under AAJ.

Opinions:

(McLachlin, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Fish, and Rothstein): "[T]he respondent Cyr is entitled to procedural fairness[.]" Although not everything SAAQ does is subject to AAJ, "the act of authorization" is one of the specific things the AAJ is designed to cover, and passing the authority through the contract and CVVM does not exempt it from public law. Majority decision.

(Deschamps, Abella, and Charron): "The parties are bound by contract," and it is clear from the laws establishing SAAQ's authority that its relationship with CVVM is designed to be a contractual relationship. Cyr, as an employee of CVVM, is also bound by that contract and contract law should apply.