Sansfaçon, Lavallée, Baudouin

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court granting in part an application for moral and punitive damages. Allowed in part.

On their own behalf and as mandataries of 24 other people, the appellants brought an action against the respondents for inconvenience suffered due to excessive truck traffic on a road a few hundred metres from their homes.

Starting in 2016, the construction of new infrastructure for the Turcot Exchange project required a large quantity of crushed stone fill, most of which came from a quarry operated by the respondent CRH Canada Group Inc. The respondent Bau-Val inc., a neighbouring business, manufactures asphalt concrete and sells specialized products for road and building maintenance and repair. According to the appellants, Bau-Val’s activities increased during the same period and contributed to the increased heavy truck traffic on the road.

The trial judge found that, for 2016 and 2017, CRH generated excessive truck traffic that caused abnormal neighbourhood annoyances for the appellants. He also held that it had breached its duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on it, during this same period, based on proven fault under the general civil liability regime in article 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec (S.Q. 1991, c. 64) (CCQ). CRH was condemned to pay each appellant $20,000 as compensatory damages and $5,000 as punitive damages.

The judge held that the noise caused by the excessive truck traffic related to Bau-Val’s activities had never reached the threshold of seriousness and repetition required by the case law to find it liable under article 976 CCQ.

The judge did not err by finding that the noise caused by Bau-Val’s truck traffic had not exceeded the normal threshold for a public road where truck traffic is authorized. There is also no need to intervene to review his conclusions on the claims against CRH for the years prior to 2016 and for 2018 to 2021. The judge correctly held that CRH was at fault and had breached its duty to act diligently with respect to the Turcot project, but only for 2016 and 2017.

The judge made reviewable errors, however, in his assessment of the compensatory and punitive damages he awarded the appellants. Like the trial judge in Spieser c. Procureur général du Canada (C.A., 2020-01-17), 2020 QCCA 42, SOQUIJ AZ-51660596, 2020EXP-200, he made an error of law by limiting the analysis to liability founded on neighbourhood disturbances. He neglected to rule on liability arising from the proven civil fault. The consequence of this methodological error, which consisted of failing to deal with the sources of CRH’s liability separately, was to reduce the scope of the compensable injury.

By confusing the two civil liability regimes, the judge gave too much weight to the no-fault liability factors codified in article 976 CCQ. This influenced his perception of the actual injury arising from the fault, which includes the unlawful and intentional interference for which he ordered punitive damages.

In this case, it is fair and reasonable to condemn CRH to pay each appellant compensatory damages of $25,000 for the years 2016 and 2017. This condemnation takes into account the significant inconvenience they continuously suffered over a lengthy period.

CRH officers made an economic decision by considering the inconvenience suffered by the appellants as collateral damage compensable by paltry amounts. They thus exposed themselves to having to pay punitive damages sufficiently large to avoid trivializing the intentional interference with the appellants’ right. Given CRH’s patrimonial situation and the seriousness of the breach, it is condemned to pay each appellant $10,000.

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