Marcotte, Hogue, Moore

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing an action for damages ($4,331,885). Allowed in part ($197,569).

Starting in 2002, the appellants offered the respondent lodging services in the Lanaudière region. The respondent is a public institution serving the Laurentians. As a stopgap or emergency measure, the respondent placed users with intellectual disabilities there. Some were lodged for a short time, while others stayed for many years. The respondent’s intention, however, was always to move the users from the Lanaudière area back to the Laurentians. The appellants provided the same services as an intermediate resource and were remunerated based on the classification scale for this type of resource. They received additional compensation, however, for some users requiring specific services.

Initially, there was no written agreement with the respondent. It was only in March 2010 that the parties signed contracts for services. In December 2012, the respondent informed the appellants that their contracts would not be renewed and that it would be bringing its users back to its territory by March 31, 2013.

The appellants instituted proceedings against the respondent for damages consequential to the non-renewal of their contract. They argue that they must be recognized as an intermediate resource within the meaning of the Act respecting health services and social services (CQLR c. S-4.2) and benefit from the protections offered under the Act respecting the representation of family-type resources and certain intermediate resources and the negotiation process for their group agreements (CQLR, c. R-24.0.2). The trial judge concluded that the appellants were not operating an intermediate resource. She characterized the contract between the parties as a contract for services and deemed that the respondent had resiliated it in good faith.

The judge was not wrong to conclude that the appellants were never recognized as an intermediate resource. She erred, however, in concluding that they should have taken steps to be recognized as one. It is the respondent who should have filed an application to this end with the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux des Laurentides.

By failing to submit an application to have the appellants recognized as an intermediate resource with the Agence, the respondent deprived them of the possibility of availing themselves of the Act respecting health services and social services and having the contract remain in force under section 123 of the Act respecting the representation of family-type resources and certain intermediate resources and the negotiation process for their group agreements. They could then have been included in a bargaining unit and availed themselves of the collective agreement entered into for the benefit of the respondent’s intermediate resources.

However, maintaining the contract in force after March 31, 2013, would not have prevented the general return of users by the respondent in May 2012. The respondent had the power to move its users according to their needs. In this case, the judge did not err in concluding that the respondent had moved the users back to ensure their well-being and had not done so abusively, excessively, or unreasonably. In one case, however, moving the user back was wrong because it was not done in his interest and to respect his needs. The appellants, with whom he was still living at the time of trial, are entitled to obtain compensation of $197,569 for the services they continued to offer without being remunerated by the respondent.

Text of the decision: http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca